If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D750 - Report from a fanboi
In article , RichA wrote:
Eric Stevens: or http://tinyurl.com/k4prl8h android: As I've written befo I think that the D750 is the true successor to the D300s. What's your take? -- teleportation kills Body is still not as good as the D300's was. A D300 with a FF sensor is pretty much a D800 with a lower pixel count. What's wrong with the D750 body, then? -- Sandman |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D750 - Report from a fanboi
In article ,
RichA wrote: On Tuesday, 3 March 2015 09:22:27 UTC-5, android wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: http://petapixel.com/2014/10/14/niko...ve-created-mon ster / or http://tinyurl.com/k4prl8h As I've written befo I think that the D750 is the true successor to the D300s. What's your take? -- teleportation kills Body is still not as good as the D300's was. A D300 with a FF sensor is pretty much a D800 with a lower pixel count. The D700? If you want a lower pixel count in a new unit then there's always the D4*... I think that the D750 is the proper replacement of the high end amateur or semi pro cameras that the D300* where. A "D400" would cost like the 7D2 or more... http://tinyurl.com/qj72oua -- teleportation kills |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D750 - Report from a fanboi
On 3/3/2015 4:32 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: As I've written befo I think that the D750 is the true successor to the D300s. What's your take? In my case, it's the successor to the D300, which in turn was the successor to the D70. it may have been what you bought after owning a d70 but that doesn't make it a successor. the d300 was *not* a successor of the d70. it was the successor of the d200 which was the successor of the d100. the d70 was a consumer slr, which was succeeded by the d80, d90 and then the d5000 series. While there was a very noticable jump from the D70 to the D300 there seems to be an even bigger jump from the D300 to the D750. that's because the d70 and d300 different product tiers and the d300 and d750 are not only different product tiers but also dx/fx. There is a marked improvement in dynamic range which gives rise to improved low light shooting at even moderate ISOs. no ****. the sensor in the d300 is much better than what was in the d70, plus it didn't have the electronic shutter that hobbled the d70. It ain't the camera. As I have posted before, my daughter has sold her images, taken with a D70 and a kit lens, for over $700. She has been offered one per shows, but turned them down. -- PeterN |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D750 - Report from a fanboi
In article , PeterN
wrote: As I've written befo I think that the D750 is the true successor to the D300s. What's your take? In my case, it's the successor to the D300, which in turn was the successor to the D70. it may have been what you bought after owning a d70 but that doesn't make it a successor. the d300 was *not* a successor of the d70. it was the successor of the d200 which was the successor of the d100. the d70 was a consumer slr, which was succeeded by the d80, d90 and then the d5000 series. While there was a very noticable jump from the D70 to the D300 there seems to be an even bigger jump from the D300 to the D750. that's because the d70 and d300 different product tiers and the d300 and d750 are not only different product tiers but also dx/fx. There is a marked improvement in dynamic range which gives rise to improved low light shooting at even moderate ISOs. no ****. the sensor in the d300 is much better than what was in the d70, plus it didn't have the electronic shutter that hobbled the d70. It ain't the camera. this discussion is. As I have posted before, my daughter has sold her images, taken with a D70 and a kit lens, for over $700. She has been offered one per shows, but turned them down. what your daughter has sold has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor, it's resolution and dynamic range or how nikon classifies the various models. ten years ago, a lot of people sold photos from a d70. it was a very good camera in its day, but those days are *long* gone. even a lowly d3200 blows it away. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D750 - Report from a fanboi
On 3/6/2015 6:50 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: As I've written befo I think that the D750 is the true successor to the D300s. What's your take? In my case, it's the successor to the D300, which in turn was the successor to the D70. it may have been what you bought after owning a d70 but that doesn't make it a successor. the d300 was *not* a successor of the d70. it was the successor of the d200 which was the successor of the d100. the d70 was a consumer slr, which was succeeded by the d80, d90 and then the d5000 series. While there was a very noticable jump from the D70 to the D300 there seems to be an even bigger jump from the D300 to the D750. that's because the d70 and d300 different product tiers and the d300 and d750 are not only different product tiers but also dx/fx. There is a marked improvement in dynamic range which gives rise to improved low light shooting at even moderate ISOs. no ****. the sensor in the d300 is much better than what was in the d70, plus it didn't have the electronic shutter that hobbled the d70. It ain't the camera. this discussion is. As I have posted before, my daughter has sold her images, taken with a D70 and a kit lens, for over $700. She has been offered one per shows, but turned them down. what your daughter has sold has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor, it's resolution and dynamic range or how nikon classifies the various models. Uhm! She still uses it, and her images are still selling. ten years ago, a lot of people sold photos from a d70. it was a very good camera in its day, but those days are *long* gone. even a lowly d3200 blows it away. It's still the photographer, not the camera. -- PeterN |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D750 - Report from a fanboi
In article , PeterN
wrote: As I've written befo I think that the D750 is the true successor to the D300s. What's your take? In my case, it's the successor to the D300, which in turn was the successor to the D70. it may have been what you bought after owning a d70 but that doesn't make it a successor. the d300 was *not* a successor of the d70. it was the successor of the d200 which was the successor of the d100. the d70 was a consumer slr, which was succeeded by the d80, d90 and then the d5000 series. While there was a very noticable jump from the D70 to the D300 there seems to be an even bigger jump from the D300 to the D750. that's because the d70 and d300 different product tiers and the d300 and d750 are not only different product tiers but also dx/fx. There is a marked improvement in dynamic range which gives rise to improved low light shooting at even moderate ISOs. no ****. the sensor in the d300 is much better than what was in the d70, plus it didn't have the electronic shutter that hobbled the d70. It ain't the camera. this discussion is. As I have posted before, my daughter has sold her images, taken with a D70 and a kit lens, for over $700. She has been offered one per shows, but turned them down. what your daughter has sold has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor, it's resolution and dynamic range or how nikon classifies the various models. Uhm! She still uses it, and her images are still selling. still missing the point. ten years ago, a lot of people sold photos from a d70. it was a very good camera in its day, but those days are *long* gone. even a lowly d3200 blows it away. It's still the photographer, not the camera. it's a bit of both. otherwise top photographers would use cellphone cameras. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D750 - Report from a fanboi
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: As I've written befo I think that the D750 is the true successor to the D300s. What's your take? In my case, it's the successor to the D300, which in turn was the successor to the D70. it may have been what you bought after owning a d70 but that doesn't make it a successor. the d300 was *not* a successor of the d70. it was the successor of the d200 which was the successor of the d100. the d70 was a consumer slr, which was succeeded by the d80, d90 and then the d5000 series. While there was a very noticable jump from the D70 to the D300 there seems to be an even bigger jump from the D300 to the D750. that's because the d70 and d300 different product tiers and the d300 and d750 are not only different product tiers but also dx/fx. There is a marked improvement in dynamic range which gives rise to improved low light shooting at even moderate ISOs. no ****. the sensor in the d300 is much better than what was in the d70, plus it didn't have the electronic shutter that hobbled the d70. It ain't the camera. this discussion is. As I have posted before, my daughter has sold her images, taken with a D70 and a kit lens, for over $700. She has been offered one per shows, but turned them down. what your daughter has sold has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor, it's resolution and dynamic range or how nikon classifies the various models. Uhm! She still uses it, and her images are still selling. still missing the point. ten years ago, a lot of people sold photos from a d70. it was a very good camera in its day, but those days are *long* gone. even a lowly d3200 blows it away. It's still the photographer, not the camera. it's a bit of both. Sure, but the dame should probably treat herself and get a new camera, Unless she finds some esoteric qualities in the D70... If the latter is the case then she aught to get a case of used ones to replace it with then it fails... A D70s? otherwise top photographers would use cellphone cameras. -- teleportation kills |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D750 - Report from a fanboi
On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 04:59:06 +0100, android wrote:
In article , nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: As I've written befo I think that the D750 is the true successor to the D300s. What's your take? In my case, it's the successor to the D300, which in turn was the successor to the D70. it may have been what you bought after owning a d70 but that doesn't make it a successor. the d300 was *not* a successor of the d70. it was the successor of the d200 which was the successor of the d100. the d70 was a consumer slr, which was succeeded by the d80, d90 and then the d5000 series. While there was a very noticable jump from the D70 to the D300 there seems to be an even bigger jump from the D300 to the D750. that's because the d70 and d300 different product tiers and the d300 and d750 are not only different product tiers but also dx/fx. There is a marked improvement in dynamic range which gives rise to improved low light shooting at even moderate ISOs. no ****. the sensor in the d300 is much better than what was in the d70, plus it didn't have the electronic shutter that hobbled the d70. It ain't the camera. this discussion is. As I have posted before, my daughter has sold her images, taken with a D70 and a kit lens, for over $700. She has been offered one per shows, but turned them down. what your daughter has sold has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor, it's resolution and dynamic range or how nikon classifies the various models. Uhm! She still uses it, and her images are still selling. still missing the point. ten years ago, a lot of people sold photos from a d70. it was a very good camera in its day, but those days are *long* gone. even a lowly d3200 blows it away. It's still the photographer, not the camera. it's a bit of both. Sure, but the dame should probably treat herself and get a new camera, Unless she finds some esoteric qualities in the D70... If the latter is the case then she aught to get a case of used ones to replace it with then it fails... A D70s? A D70 can be updated to D70s specs. otherwise top photographers would use cellphone cameras. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D750 - Report from a fanboi
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 04:59:06 +0100, android wrote: In article , nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: As I've written befo I think that the D750 is the true successor to the D300s. What's your take? In my case, it's the successor to the D300, which in turn was the successor to the D70. it may have been what you bought after owning a d70 but that doesn't make it a successor. the d300 was *not* a successor of the d70. it was the successor of the d200 which was the successor of the d100. the d70 was a consumer slr, which was succeeded by the d80, d90 and then the d5000 series. While there was a very noticable jump from the D70 to the D300 there seems to be an even bigger jump from the D300 to the D750. that's because the d70 and d300 different product tiers and the d300 and d750 are not only different product tiers but also dx/fx. There is a marked improvement in dynamic range which gives rise to improved low light shooting at even moderate ISOs. no ****. the sensor in the d300 is much better than what was in the d70, plus it didn't have the electronic shutter that hobbled the d70. It ain't the camera. this discussion is. As I have posted before, my daughter has sold her images, taken with a D70 and a kit lens, for over $700. She has been offered one per shows, but turned them down. what your daughter has sold has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor, it's resolution and dynamic range or how nikon classifies the various models. Uhm! She still uses it, and her images are still selling. still missing the point. ten years ago, a lot of people sold photos from a d70. it was a very good camera in its day, but those days are *long* gone. even a lowly d3200 blows it away. It's still the photographer, not the camera. it's a bit of both. Sure, but the dame should probably treat herself and get a new camera, Unless she finds some esoteric qualities in the D70... If the latter is the case then she aught to get a case of used ones to replace it with then it fails... A D70s? A D70 can be updated to D70s specs. But... There would be hardware differences. Like the s on the body! otherwise top photographers would use cellphone cameras. -- teleportation kills |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D750 - Report from a fanboi
On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 08:53:44 +0100, android wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 04:59:06 +0100, android wrote: In article , nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: As I've written befo I think that the D750 is the true successor to the D300s. What's your take? In my case, it's the successor to the D300, which in turn was the successor to the D70. it may have been what you bought after owning a d70 but that doesn't make it a successor. the d300 was *not* a successor of the d70. it was the successor of the d200 which was the successor of the d100. the d70 was a consumer slr, which was succeeded by the d80, d90 and then the d5000 series. While there was a very noticable jump from the D70 to the D300 there seems to be an even bigger jump from the D300 to the D750. that's because the d70 and d300 different product tiers and the d300 and d750 are not only different product tiers but also dx/fx. There is a marked improvement in dynamic range which gives rise to improved low light shooting at even moderate ISOs. no ****. the sensor in the d300 is much better than what was in the d70, plus it didn't have the electronic shutter that hobbled the d70. It ain't the camera. this discussion is. As I have posted before, my daughter has sold her images, taken with a D70 and a kit lens, for over $700. She has been offered one per shows, but turned them down. what your daughter has sold has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor, it's resolution and dynamic range or how nikon classifies the various models. Uhm! She still uses it, and her images are still selling. still missing the point. ten years ago, a lot of people sold photos from a d70. it was a very good camera in its day, but those days are *long* gone. even a lowly d3200 blows it away. It's still the photographer, not the camera. it's a bit of both. Sure, but the dame should probably treat herself and get a new camera, Unless she finds some esoteric qualities in the D70... If the latter is the case then she aught to get a case of used ones to replace it with then it fails... A D70s? A D70 can be updated to D70s specs. But... There would be hardware differences. Like the s on the body! That, and http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/23327089 "The only significant differences between the Nikon D70 and D70s is a bigger LCD (2.0" vs. 1.8") and that Nikon no longer includes the handy MS-D70 disposable CR2 battery holder for free." otherwise top photographers would use cellphone cameras. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report: Nikon's New Sports-Focused Full-Frame Will be Called the... | Sandman | Digital Photography | 0 | August 20th 14 10:26 AM |
DXO Report | PeterN[_3_] | Digital Photography | 0 | May 31st 13 04:53 PM |
Multiblitz Report | loionan | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | March 6th 06 06:29 AM |
Nikon D2X Test Report: Preliminary Image Analysis | deryck lant | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | March 15th 05 04:10 PM |
Nikon D2X Test Report: Preliminary Image Analysis | deryck lant | Digital Photography | 1 | March 14th 05 09:34 PM |