Question Another which camera thread... (Nikon D750 or Sony A7R 2 or A7S 2)

Which camera would you pick?

  • D750

  • A7R2

  • A7S2


Results are only viewable after voting.

OldSwitcheroo

Prominent Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
4,117
Reaction score
968
Points
771
Location
Location, Location
Hi,

Hoping I can garner some advice and opinions from owners of the above cameras...

My history is novice (various compacts, D40, Sony Nex-5) I'm looking to take the next step and splash out on a long term full frame camera that will last me a fair few years...

If we assume for the thread that the cost of either body and two lenses isn't an issue and the main uses (this year at least) will be street, landscape, portrait, nature...

I'm not going to be using it much for video, but would like the option for future 4k recording (I don't want to make a full movie, if anything I may move into vlogging, but that's waaaay down the line).

I'm heading to Nevada and Arizona on a roadtrip this summer, so particularly keen on night-time 'neon' shots of Vegas, plus landscape of Grand Canyon, but also some low light photography in Sedona and Flagstaff (Milky Way-type shots), hence why A7S2 is on the list - can either of the other two do just as good a job in low light (i.e. to the non-trained eye?). Other locations inc Budapest and Netherlands planned.

I'm drawn to the A7R2 at the moment, but the D750 has come in purely because I may be able to squeeze a 3rd lens into the mix, plus it's Nikon and it's lens variance is huge (although I know metabones will help with the Sony). Sony is more compact, but is slightly slower, doesn't have dual memory card slots, far less battery etc...

As for software I'm looking at Lightroom and Photoshop for editing as they seem good for what I will need / want, from the free trials I've used this past week.

It's a tough one, but any guidance you can offer, most appreciated...

Have added a poll for quick responses...

Thanks!
 
Realistically, for what you want to shoot, any camera will deliver results. The first priority (assuming you haven't already) would be to get yourself down to somewhere that sells them and actually hold them all to see what 'fits' you the best.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about the lack of dual card slots or shorter battery life on the Sony's. I've never shot with a dual slot camera covering weddings/portraits etc and it's not been an issue. With regards to batteries, it's no major problem carrying a couple of spares in your pocket/bag. Any really low light photography will be on a tripod so again, any camera would be using the lowest possible ISO for quality. I realise shooting the milky way you may want faster shutter speed than most nighttime landscapes so high-ISO performance would be a benefit for those but I wouldn't focus your decision entirely on that.

What kind of focal length do you prefer now on your crop bodies? Work that out and look at the FF equivalent then see what lenses cover that range for Sony/Nikon. I've only shot stills on a D750 for the last wedding I covered but I'd guess that the Sony is the more obvious choice for video work but again, I don't think that would rule out the Nikon entirely.

In the end, any of the three cameras will deliver excellent results and like most situations, the actual results are determined by the 12" behind the viewfinder. Go and hold them all and see which one you actually want to shoot with rather than getting hung up on stats/DxO etc.
 
Nice place to be - reasonable budget and also starting from scratch.

Any reason why the Canon 6D (no 4k though) or even 5Dmk4 (see thread about 4k update) are not on the list ?

USA Road Trip 2015

Above link to our trip last year to the Canyon area, sounds like a similar trip to the one you are planning - very jealous. Note that these were shot with a crop so to get similar views on a full frame you need to multiply the focal length by 1.6.

We did a circumnavigation of the canyon (2200 miles), starting at Las Vegas > Sedona (stunning place, you must try the "100 omelettes" café for breakfast) + days out to Grand Canyon / Painted Desert > Monument Valley, Page and Antelope Canyon (a real must) > Brian Head with days out to Bryce canyon, Zion Canyon and Cedar breaks > back to Vegas.

For night / milky way shots on a FF the recommendation is for around 24mm with f2.8 or less, ISO 800-1600, open wide and 15-30s exposure. Have a read of lonelyspeck site, loads of info on there on astro photography.

What lenses are you thinking of - if you can stretch to a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc that should be a good walkabout/landscape lens and then I would go for a prime lens for city night and indoors, the choice is yours 50 f1.4 is the stock answer - 14mm f2.8 for wide landscapes and astro (got the Samyang and very impressed although fully manual), 24/30mm f1.4 for indoors / street scenes or 85 f1.4 for portraits / street candid (maybe).

Hope this helps.
 
Tough one, all are great and all will offer stellar results. Try them out and see which you prefer. I personally don't like the handling of the Sony A7's, the grips aren't very nice and it really bugs me that you don't have direct access to moving the focus point around, you have to press another button first.

Will you be wanting to use the LCD a lot for shooting? If so forget the D750. Also, if 4k is a must forget the D750 as it's not 4k. If you're wanting to shoot fast moving nature and sports then the D750 will be better. Do you have a preference for OVF or EVF?

Another thing to consider is that there's not only a lot more lens choice with Nikon, there's also a lot more second hand lenses flying about so more likely to find want you want a get a relative bargain.
 
I would go Nikon. I am a Canon user myself but have had plenty of time using many Nikon and Sony bodies. The final output of all is fantastic, getting there is a different matter. The battery life on the Sony cameras is dire, just so frustrating to use. The Nikon is so much better to handle, better lens selection, better battery life and the user interface is much nicer. The Sony with metabones adapter for Nikon sucks, it is just so slow with a lot of lenses. Sony also need to hire someone to take all their user interfaces and build a decent one that is consistent across models. I have a lot of Sony products and love them, but their cameras just seem to be aimed at a different kind of photographer than me.
 
Couple of other things to consider. I'm a D750 user and hands down it's the best camera I've ever used. Handling, final image, battery life, ergonomics etc etc. That being said I've constantly been plagued by GAS for the D810. So far I've resisted as I love the D750, and I know it's purely GAS and the D810 can't offer me anything over the D750 other than buffer size for sports (I don't need the extra MP 99% of the time). However, there's rumoured to be a D810 replacement imminent and if that gets the AF system from the D5 (which is highly likely) whilst maintaining the 36mp or even getting the Sony 42mp it's going to be a very hard camera to beat imo. Obviously we'd have to wait for DXO to measure the sensor but based on Nikon's recent releases I can't imagine it will disappoint. Trouble is I can see it being around the £3000-3500 mark :eek: There's also been rumours of a D750 replacement but they've gone quiet now and not likely to be until late this year at the earliest. Of course, until an official announcement it's all hypothetical ;)
 
I guess Nikon would like to match or better the 5DS with pixel count, or at least come close and trump it on AF and DR to compete against the 5D4. The Pentax K1 is also a strong competitor for the 810 currently which I am sure Nikon are thinking about.

A friend had a serious attack of GAS last year when he hit some of his pension fund. It started with A D750 and a 600mm, then he added a D4S and then a D810 and finally a D500/200-500 combo. He regrets the D4S and sold the 750 as he had too much choice.
 
I guess Nikon would like to match or better the 5DS with pixel count, or at least come close and trump it on AF and DR to compete against the 5D4. The Pentax K1 is also a strong competitor for the 810 currently which I am sure Nikon are thinking about.

A friend had a serious attack of GAS last year when he hit some of his pension fund. It started with A D750 and a 600mm, then he added a D4S and then a D810 and finally a D500/200-500 combo. He regrets the D4S and sold the 750 as he had too much choice.
I personally think they'll use Sony's 42mp from the A7RII, I've not heard of Sony making a higher res one as yet. I like the idea of being able to use smaller res settings though as for most things 36 and 42mp aren't necessary, although it can be nice for wildlife to allow cropping. Therefore if would be nice if you could choose say 24mp file size for everyday shooting, and then 36-42mp for those occasions you want to crop. Currently there are different file sizes but only for 12 bit not 14 bit, and then they are for uncompressed and the difference between these and the large 14 bit lossless compressed are negligible so there's not point using the lower res files.
 
I have a D750 and spent a long, long time thinking about the A7R2 but I still have my D750 and no A7R2 which perhaps answers the question from my point of view.

There's a few reasons for that and some of that is down to my personal use which may not apply to you. The main one is AF performance which borders on unbelievably quick on the D750, the D700's AF was quick and accurate but the D750 manages to do even better. The Sony lens range is getting better although I'm not keen on the size/weight of a lot of the lenses and also since I'm looking at it as an additional system, it means I'm going to end up spending a lot of money on lenses I already have in F-mount. If there were more small and cheap primes I'd definitely be more tempted but that's not the case and likely won't ever be.

Also looking at it as an additional system it doesn't offer enough over the Nikon, I'm content with the video on my other cameras and the size/weight of the A7 and lenses. Also I'm not keen on the A7's handling particularly compared to the D750 which just seems to fit in the hand perfectly though that isn't a deal breaker for the A7. The A7R2's sensor is clearly very impressive but the D750's sensor is no slouch either which I find great to work with particularly being able to pull out the dynamic range.

All that said, I haven't properly used an A7 series camera at all nor an A7R2 so I can only comment on what I've researched on them which is certainly nowhere near as good as hands-on experience.

There are rumours of a D750 replacement with the 42MP sensor or similar so I'm content to wait and see if anything comes of them, Sony this year have said about keeping some of their sensors to themselves which makes sense as I wouldn't be considering the A7R2 if I could buy that sensor in a Nikon body:

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/22/sony-keeps-best-sensors-cameras/
 
I have a D750 and spent a long, long time thinking about the A7R2 but I still have my D750 and no A7R2 which perhaps answers the question from my point of view.

There's a few reasons for that and some of that is down to my personal use which may not apply to you. The main one is AF performance which borders on unbelievably quick on the D750, the D700's AF was quick and accurate but the D750 manages to do even better. The Sony lens range is getting better although I'm not keen on the size/weight of a lot of the lenses and also since I'm looking at it as an additional system, it means I'm going to end up spending a lot of money on lenses I already have in F-mount. If there were more small and cheap primes I'd definitely be more tempted but that's not the case and likely won't ever be.

Also looking at it as an additional system it doesn't offer enough over the Nikon, I'm content with the video on my other cameras and the size/weight of the A7 and lenses. Also I'm not keen on the A7's handling particularly compared to the D750 which just seems to fit in the hand perfectly though that isn't a deal breaker for the A7. The A7R2's sensor is clearly very impressive but the D750's sensor is no slouch either which I find great to work with particularly being able to pull out the dynamic range.

All that said, I haven't properly used an A7 series camera at all nor an A7R2 so I can only comment on what I've researched on them which is certainly nowhere near as good as hands-on experience.

There are rumours of a D750 replacement with the 42MP sensor or similar so I'm content to wait and see if anything comes of them, Sony this year have said about keeping some of their sensors to themselves which makes sense as I wouldn't be considering the A7R2 if I could buy that sensor in a Nikon body:

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/22/sony-keeps-best-sensors-cameras/
I agree with this, except the bit about the D750 replacement having a 42mp sensor. I'd be extremely surprised if it gets a sensor with that resolution as it'd be competing with the D810/820 territory. It could get a 36mp sensor to try and compete with the 5D4, but part of me thinks they'll be sticking with 24mp, especially considering there's rumours that the D7200 replacement maybe decreasing resolution and getting the sensor from the D500. I'd like to think that they'll increase frame rate and buffer but I'm sure they'll 'cripple' it to a degree so as not to compete with the D500 and D5. Of course this is all speculation.

As frustrating as it is for the consumer they won't bring out the perfect camera as they have to maintain distinct differences between the model line ups. The D750 is your 'entry level' FF camera being very good in all areas but not the best in any. The D810 is your high MP high DR high IQ masterclass, and your D500 and D5 are your super fast action cams.
 
Just to be pedantic, the D610 is the entry level camera from Nikon.
The D750 is considered the updated version of the D610 :p
 
Not according to Nikon. They suggest it is a love child of the D610 and D810. Carefully marketed to sit right between complete with its silly tilty screen.
 
You've obviously never had to shoot at ground level or over a crowd's heads... :devil:
 
Last edited:
You've obviously never had to shoot at ground level or over a crow's heads... :devil:

Not quite what I meant, loved it on my 80D before I lost it in a moment of forgetfulness. A few times when I have been laying in goose poo I wished my 7D2 had one. It is more the design, two mates have already had to have their ribbon cables replaced.
 
D750
 
Thanks for the insight, plenty to ponder there [emoji848]
You wanted to know what to get, i won't bore you with why as you'll know what each camera does, the form, the glass you can get, the pitfalls as you would have researched all of that no doubt. What you need is an answer to the question and the answer is D750. No point in the rest. Mods close thread now ;)
 
D750 all day long. No hands on experience with it but seen many, many photos with it and fantastic quality/features.

Side question, why do you need 4k? There's not enough sets out there for the broadcasters such as BBC to see it worth while yet. So will be a couple of years before this happens and becomes a standard.

Full HD can produce beautiful results. D750 can do full HD at 60fps so you can do those stunning slow motion effects. For a general vlogging camera this will be more than adequate. It's all about quality content than higher resolution.

I think 4k is a 'nice' to have but not essential feature for you, but only you can make the decision :thumbsup: I know i've made the mistake when i bought my camera and do regret not getting a DSLR and got a MTF with 4k instead, but that's mainly due to me thinking i'd do more videoing than photography.
 
Not according to Nikon. They suggest it is a love child of the D610 and D810. Carefully marketed to sit right between complete with its silly tilty screen.
What do Nikon know? ;) Shares next to nothing from the D810 (AF system, but then it's borrowed that from the D4s really) and is almost a carbon copy of the D610, just with a few enhancements in certain areas.

I know minnnt on TP broke the ribbon on his screen but you've gotta be really Jan fisted to break it imo ;)
 
D750 all day long. No hands on experience with it but seen many, many photos with it and fantastic quality/features.

Side question, why do you need 4k? There's not enough sets out there for the broadcasters such as BBC to see it worth while yet. So will be a couple of years before this happens and becomes a standard.

Full HD can produce beautiful results. D750 can do full HD at 60fps so you can do those stunning slow motion effects. For a general vlogging camera this will be more than adequate. It's all about quality content than higher resolution.

I think 4k is a 'nice' to have but not essential feature for you, but only you can make the decision :thumbsup: I know i've made the mistake when i bought my camera and do regret not getting a DSLR and got a MTF with 4k instead, but that's mainly due to me thinking i'd do more videoing than photography.
Video??? What's that? ;)

As for your comment about seeing pics from the D750, have you not seen any from the A7's, they're extremely nice too?
 
Video??? What's that? ;)

As for your comment about seeing pics from the D750, have you not seen any from the A7's, they're extremely nice too?
I have and the images are stunning, especially with the 42MP in the A7R2.

My opinion was based on an overall assessment from what i know if each.

A7R2 - used ~£1,900
A7S2 - used ~£1,800 (cheapest i could see on ebay)
D750 - used ~£1,250

I'd completely rule out the A7S2, if you are to go for the Sony you might as well spend the extra ~£100 for the A7R2.

I believe the Nikon has a better lens choice, which opens up a big used market, so some bargains to be had

I'd rather get the d750 and spend the extra £650 on some good glass.

:thumbsup:
 
You can get a d750 new for £1250 from Panamoz
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom