D750 or D850?

[pcdebb]

That, is the question. Been thinking about full frame and the time is now. I see both are on sale at Best Buy, and I got reward dollars and a gift card burning a hole in my wallet.

The only difference I can immediately see is megapixels. Which is better? coming from a D7500. I have two lenses that are DX specific, but my Tamron zoom, and Nikkor 50 are good.

What are your recommendations?

 

[JohnB_Sea]

It really depends on what you use your camera for now and in what areas you think you will expand into in the future. If the sky is the limit on what you want to do, the 850 is a lot more camera and provides more room to grow. For example, if your thing is landscape, the 850's greater resolution makes it better.

I think this site is useful for helping to think about pros/cons of different cameras. Nikon D750 vs Nikon D850 Detailed Comparison.

 

[pcdebb]

I want to expand in a few areas, landscape being one of them. Night photography too and maybe some portraits. I was already considering an 85mm no matter what camera I had.

 

[pcdebb]

At a certain point, I need to know how the megapixels will make the difference in my images, is that more for print?

 

[drr1531]

There are a lot more differences than MP. Different focus system for one. With the D850 you can still use your DX lenses and capture 20MP images. You can set the camera to recognize DX lenses and automatically switch into DX mode.

 

[bpdougd]

When the D850 shipped I already had a D750 so that skewed my response. The thing I valued most about the D750 was its low light, high iso abilities. The D850 is no better (in truth, slightly less capable) in low light and its other virtues were not compelling to me. YMMV of course.

 

[Luke_Miller]

At a certain point, I need to know how the megapixels will make the difference in my images, is that more for print?

I make use of the D850's high resolution in several ways. Rather than going to a smaller and lighter Z Series body I use smaller and lighter prime lenses. While I try to get the composition I want when I take the shot, the D850 allows me to get it in post via crop. I still get the shots I want, but have a much lighter load compared to my f2.8 zooms.

The D850 can produce images with a lot of noise at higher ISO settings. Just a fact of life due to its small photosites. But if I resample that noisey 45mpx image to the 21mpx size of my D5 images, the noise level is comparable. So the D850 is great in low light as long as I don't need a 45mpx image from it.

Lastly, while I don't print big, the full resolution 45mpx images shot at ISO 64 and viewed at 100% on my 4K monitor are amazing. A studio portrait or landscape is a joy to look at. And when I resample them to lower resolutions for use in galleries, they look better than if I shot them at that resolution initially.

I've had all of the single digit Nikon bodies starting with the D1 and many of the three digit ones (D200,D300,D700,D810). The D850 is the best general purpose body I've owned.

 

[ijm5012]

If you can afford it, get the 850. It's the better camera of the two.

 

[ijm5012]

When the D850 shipped I already had a D750 so that skewed my response. The thing I valued most about the D750 was its low light, high iso abilities. The D850 is no better (in truth, slightly less capable) in low light and its other virtues were not compelling to me. YMMV of course.

When you say the 850 is worse than the 750 in high ISO, are you comparing 1:1 crops from both sensors, or are you scaling the D850 down to 24MP so that both images are at the same magnification?

Using DPR's low-light comparison scene, when I scale the D850 image to be the same size as that of the D750, the differences in noise are VERY minor. This is a big advantage in favor of the D850, because if high ISO noise is a concern you can always downscale the image to 24MP, and when you need the resolution you can simply use the native file size. It's the opposite with the D750, where you're always going to be up-rez'ing the image if you need more pixels, a method that'll always be inferior when compared to the D850.

Here's the DPR comparison scene, RAW images at ISO 6400, scaled to the same size.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Butlerkid]

The D850 can do it all! I use mine as a backup to the D5 because the focus system is so good when doing birds and wildlife. If I can't fill the frame due to not having enough focal length, I can crop later in post and still have files large enough with great quality for printing.

The D850 is a fantastic camera for landscapes. The details and color rendering are excellent. Features like focus peaking make it ideal for interior architecture images. Focus stacking enable high quality macros. The silent shutter is also nice for concerts, etc.

Night time? No problem.

High ISOs are not a problem. ISO on the D850 is very good up for 1,600. Above that DxO Prime noise reduction takes care of noise and preserves fine fur and feather details. (FWIW - I no longer worry about using high ISO's because DxO NR is just so easy and so good. However, LR and PS also do an adequate job of NR although fine details are slightly impacted.)

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I'm fine with the D750, haven't felt the need to upgrade. If you need the best Nikon Dxxx body, the D850 is probably the one to get. Though the D750 is plenty camera for most general shooting.

 

[pcdebb]

Thank you all for your input. In all honesty I can probably do what I want with the D750 just fine. Plus it'll save me some money. I would only need to upgrade a couple of lenses, but my question is *CAN* I use DX lenses until then or no?

 

[ijm5012]

Thank you all for your input. In all honesty I can probably do what I want with the D750 just fine. Plus it'll save me some money. I would only need to upgrade a couple of lenses, but my question is *CAN* I use DX lenses until then or no?

You can, but you'll only be getting a 10.7MP image. With the D850 and DX lenses, you'll be getting 20.3 MP images (basically a D500).

 

[bpdougd]

When you say the 850 is worse than the 750 in high ISO, are you comparing 1:1 crops from both sensors, or are you scaling the D850 down to 24MP so that both images are at the same magnification?

Using DPR's low-light comparison scene, when I scale the D850 image to be the same size as that of the D750, the differences in noise are VERY minor. This is a big advantage in favor of the D850, because if high ISO noise is a concern you can always downscale the image to 24MP, and when you need the resolution you can simply use the native file size. It's the opposite with the D750, where you're always going to be up-rez'ing the image if you need more pixels, a method that'll always be inferior when compared to the D850.

Here's the DPR comparison scene, RAW images at ISO 6400, scaled to the same size.

View attachment 1637265

To be clear, I have never owned a D850. I rented one for a week. My observations are based on that brief experience with the D850 and owning the D750 for a couple of years. To answer your question, no I did not try downscaling the D850 images. I suspect that the high iso differences between the D850 and the D750 are real but likely small. My point was that the D850 is not better than the D750 in that respect and that, for me, the other virtues of the D850 were not worth the cost of entry.

 

[ijm5012]

To be clear, I have never owned a D850. I rented one for a week. My observations are based on that brief experience with the D850 and owning the D750 for a couple of years. To answer your question, no I did not try downscaling the D850 images. I suspect that the high iso differences between the D850 and the D750 are real but likely small. My point was that the D850 is not better than the D750 in that respect and that, for me, the other virtues of the D850 were not worth the cost of entry.

I don't know why anyone would think that a higher megapixel camera would perform better than a lower megapixel camera when it comes to ISO noise.

While ISO performance may not be appreciably different between the two cameras, there are a number of other areas where the D850 has an advantage over the D750. I won't bother creating a list of them, but there is far more to a camera than its high ISO ability. It's obviously up to the OP to determine whether or not those advantages make it worthwhile to purchase an 850 over a 750.

 

[bpdougd]

I don't know why anyone would think that a higher megapixel camera would perform better than a lower megapixel camera when it comes to ISO noise.

While ISO performance may not be appreciably different between the two cameras, there are a number of other areas where the D850 has an advantage over the D750. I won't bother creating a list of them, but there is far more to a camera than its high ISO ability. It's obviously up to the OP to determine whether or not those advantages make it worthwhile to purchase an 850 over a 750.

Again, to be clear, I did not expect the D850 (or the D800 or the D810) to be better at high iso. What I was trying to explain (poorly it seems) is that the high iso performance of the D750 was a large part of its appeal (to me) and that the other virtues of the D8xx series were lost on me. I did not need them.

 

[TonyW]

At a certain point, I need to know how the megapixels will make the difference in my images, is that more for print?

Yes, generally more native MP resolution will resolve better detail (comparing the same lens) and from a print point of view less interpolation to reach a specific size should result in improvement in resolution. But be careful you may not need it or even notice it!

Print size difference based on sending native image data to an Epson printer at its standard resolution (Canon would yield slightly larger prints). This is purely size related not IQ related
Nikon D850 @ 360 ppi = 23" x 15"
Nikon D750 @ 360 ppi = 17" x 11"

Bear in mind that best technique is paramount to make the most of these potential gains. Tripod locked down with remote release and mirror up for landscape should show the benefits of added resolution for at least some finely detailed subjects. Handheld even at higher than 2x focal length will not necessarily guarantee an equally resolved image between 2 different MP counts using the same lens.

When evaluating the two systems purely on a MP for print basis you should really do at least two comparisons. First downsample D850 pixel count to match the D750 - AND actually PRINT. Next upsample the D750 to match the D850 pixel count - AND make a PRINT.

There are many reasons for choosing one system over another and from what you have said so far you will probably find that the D750 covers needs adequately and the savings you make may outweigh only a small potential improvement

 

[atlanta_man]

Buy a lightly used D750 with warranty/return priv's.
Spend the difference on full frame lenses.

That's what I did, working out way beyond my expectations.

 

[pcdebb]

I pulled the trigger on the D750 today. I was already thinking of possibly getting 85mm or a 50 1.4, guy at the store showed me the 24-70 2.8 which i liked alot. That's not an immediate need, I may rent those first to see how I like them.

 

[ijm5012]

I pulled the trigger on the D750 today. I was already thinking of possibly getting 85mm or a 50 1.4, guy at the store showed me the 24-70 2.8 which i liked alot. That's not an immediate need, I may rent those first to see how I like them.

If you really want a 24-70, take a look at the Tamron G2. Much more compact than the Nikon versions, and it contains VR at a fraction of the cost of Nikon's E lens.