Nikon D750 -- General Discussion

moreorless

As far as cannibalising sales goes I'd argue theres a big difference between offering say 7-8 FPS on a D750 whilst the D4s offers 11fps and the D700 and D3 having essentially the same FPS. The former would probably lose Nikon some sales but not anywhere near as much as the latter.

As far as video goes I think Canon clearly hit on something with the 5D3, a good all rounder for amatuers who want a bit of everything AND also a good camera for event pro's who do a bit of videography as well.

sevencrossing

The D750 is meant to be an action camera

Nikon already have the best action camera in the world the D4s

So may be, the D750 will be a cheap version of the D4s
in same way as the D600 was a cheap version of the D800

MikeGunter

I have been thinking about Nikon taking the video out of the DF and it kind of makes sense to me.

Consider that video is becoming a bigger and bigger deal in DSLRs. As the technology advances, certain costs will go up and it will start to significantly influence camera design. Eventually, users will start complaining. I think that Nikon may be thinking ahead to this day. Especially given the emphasis that they seem to have put on video on the D810.

I am not sure if I believe myself yet, but I find this reasoning intriguing.

Reasoning? Taking out video _made the cost go up_, not down. What weird, left handed logic are you making up that you can't believe yourself - and is it ever good sign that you can't believe yourself?

The emperor has already marched down the street; the parade is over and Df is somewhat of a success - even if a shaggy dog, to a macro market - it's selling like Edsels.

The camera is something of a marketing 'red herring', IMHO. A thing to throw at market share to show that Nikon still has game, while - apparently conceding the video market to others. (Then offering a packaged D800 for filmmakers - Nikon management can't seem to make up its mind which direction it wants to go.)

Unfortunately, to many of the faithful, and that is a lot of you reading this forum - and I am talking to you and you and you - ;-) - who don't want video - who don't feel that video is something unimportant on a serious camera - get over it.

It is important. It is much like adding light meters on pentaprisms, or autofocus, or digital sensors. I've heard the arguments on all that over the 50 plus years.

If Nikon wants to show that it has game and wants to stay in the top tier of camera providers, it needs to show it by making the top camera.

My best,

Mike

donaldejose

By all accounts the D810 is a fine improvement of the D800/D800e.

We should be happy if the D750 likewise is a fine improvement of the D610 and leave it at that. Fix the complaints with the small AF area by using the 51 point faster AF system from the D810, add a movable LCD screen, improve video, upgrade the speed of everything about 30% as allowed by the Expeed 4 processor and that's about it. Forget about a robust body like the D4 or D700 or D800 or the old D300s. The D710 is going to be a lightweight plastic (carbon fiber?) "consumer" body like the D610 and that is "good enough" for most use. The shutter will be rated at about 150,000 exposures and very few people will run past that before the next iteration comes out.

juliancolton

I dig some of these rumored specs. Articulating screen is definitely attractive for me; it's one of those things that don't make a world of difference in most cases, but that make shooting a fun and novel experience. If this camera meets or exceeds what the D6x0 was supposed to be (bad experiences with both the D600 and D610), I'll likely jump on it.

Photobug

The D750 is meant to be an action camera

Nikon already have the best action camera in the world the D4s

So may be, the D750 will be a cheap version of the D4s
in same way as the D600 was a cheap version of the D800

+1 sevencrossing
That would be a great camera. Just don't see it happening.

WestEndBoy

I have been thinking about Nikon taking the video out of the DF and it kind of makes sense to me.

Consider that video is becoming a bigger and bigger deal in DSLRs. As the technology advances, certain costs will go up and it will start to significantly influence camera design. Eventually, users will start complaining. I think that Nikon may be thinking ahead to this day. Especially given the emphasis that they seem to have put on video on the D810.

I am not sure if I believe myself yet, but I find this reasoning intriguing.

Reasoning? Taking out video _made the cost go up_, not down. What weird, left handed logic are you making up that you can't believe yourself - and is it ever good sign that you can't believe yourself?

The emperor has already marched down the street; the parade is over and Df is somewhat of a success - even if a shaggy dog, to a macro market - it's selling like Edsels.

The camera is something of a marketing 'red herring', IMHO. A thing to throw at market share to show that Nikon still has game, while - apparently conceding the video market to others. (Then offering a packaged D800 for filmmakers - Nikon management can't seem to make up its mind which direction it wants to go.)

Unfortunately, to many of the faithful, and that is a lot of you reading this forum - and I am talking to you and you and you - ;-) - who don't want video - who don't feel that video is something unimportant on a serious camera - get over it.

It is important. It is much like adding light meters on pentaprisms, or autofocus, or digital sensors. I've heard the arguments on all that over the 50 plus years.

If Nikon wants to show that it has game and wants to stay in the top tier of camera providers, it needs to show it by making the top camera.

My best,

Mike

You misunderstand. I am suggsting that adding video will increase the cost and force compromises in still to accomodate video. For example, I don't care if my lens focus breathes and I would not pay a cent to get rid of it, though it is expensive to get rid off.

And that people like me that don't want video will prefer a camera without for the above reason.

JonMcGuffin

At this point, I'm not sure how much incorporating video really comes at an added cost for Nikon. The sensors are obviously tooled for it, every camera they produce has it, and there really is just no extra processing required beyond what is there that I would think would truly ad to the cost of the camera. If anything, it would be superficial and extremely small. Even the smallest, tiniest, and cheapest little camera's have it so I think video is just part of the game now.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@WestEndBoy

There is something that you may not understand. The technology of video in the latest iteration of cameras since the D90 is that in LiveView the video is already there. IOW, the cost is in taking the video out, as in the case of the Df - a wacky thing to do to ensure it's niche in an absurdest market.

It really dulls the senses to ponder why they did it, moreover why to think of it or debate it - think medieval monks and angels dances on needles - it's dumb and dumber times infinity.

What anyone prefers is fine with me and should be with anyone else. Personal preference is what it is. No one should have to color with my choice of crayons - that's why there's so many choices in the box.

But Nikon has biffed it badly lately. I'm a customer and have been longer than most and choose to be because of my lenses.

The path to failure seems to be a short one. Kodak took it. And Nikon certainly doesn't need much more nudging to go that way.

My best,

Mike

PB_PM

We should be happy if the D750 likewise is a fine improvement of the D610 and leave it at that.

Why should we be happy with that? Why be happy with inferior build? Why be happy with consumer grade controls? Why would Nikon taint the quality and performance associated with the D7xx series name, with a downgrade? That just doesn't make sense to me at all.

Sports

We should be happy if the D750 likewise is a fine improvement of the D610

It would be great if Nikon improved the D610, and THAT should make us happy.
But as it happens, NR reported that Nikon positions the D750 as an action camera, so I don't think we should be happy with an incremental update of a non-action camera.
Regarding AF, if Sony can put their best, brand-new, very capable auto-focus into a $1200 body, then I don't think we should accept anything less than Nikon's best in a $2500 body.
Personally, I think the D750 will get the best AF module. It sounds like it's not THAT different from the previous version, so it's hardly that much more expensive.

Fritz

The other question to ask is if they can build a downsized D4s at a substantial profit. I would guess the D4s has a limited market segment and that a D700 replacement that gives pro-am features and sells well would in the long run be a far better profit point for the company. Let's be honest, very few of us really need a D4s for our photography work/hobby. The thing about the D700 is that it was a solid, highly versatile camera that probably met 100% of the photography needs of the vast number of photographers in its day. Nikon needs another success like that. As for video, I suspect a lot of people simply don't care about video so maybe there is a market for non video cameras. (I once turned on the video in my D4)

Photobug

@Fritz has an excellent point. I would love to see the D750 be as successful as the D300 and D700. It will stand on its own merits. If it is a D4 equivalent for the proconsumer it's going to be a fast seller.

How much longer to the show next month?
Will there be those teaser videos like they did on the Df? My hunch is yes.

donaldejose

Why? because the D750 is going to be a consumer camera; not a professional camera. At least I think so.

It will be similar to the D5xxx's place in the DX line up. In DX it is D3xxx (base), D5xxx (video), D7000 (advanced amateur) and D9xxx (missing pro body DX). In the FX line it it is likely to be D6xx (base), D7xx (video), D800 (pro), Df (pro) and Dx (pro). I don't think the D7xx series will be a pro build and control layout body if it is going to be light and sell for $2,500. So our expectations have to be reasonable.

IanG

I read somewhere that the D750 having an articulated rear screen (rumor) would make this an 'action' camera - why do you think that would be?

Also, is an increase of 1fps really that significant? How many people actually use 5fps as it is?

henrik1963

GoPro is called an action camera. Action camera could mean small and light.

Tilt LCD points to an FX version of D5xxx

$2500 does not point to a D700 replacement - smaller D4s

Bokeh_Hunter

I agree with @MikeGunter - Video needs to be in the camera system for it to be a valid product. That doesn't mean it has to be great or ground breaking, but just good - with stereo sound recording, and a input for an external mic and probably HDMI out. The DF? Who knows WTF Nikon was thinking leaving it out. I suspect the DF had an issue with heat build up or something else similar the prevented (or would have crippled) video to the point that they just dropped it. Even Leica added video in it newest body. The argument of adding cost is basically nullified at this point. For the first systems, yes is was a point as a lot more testing and development went into them. Now sensors and firmware has been developed and just needs updating. The major cost is already incurred and made up for. Fuji is a great example of a company adding video, but makes no claims that it is the best. It is just understood that it is now just a part of the system. Once the D90 came out, and others quickly followed with video - the argument about video was over.
--------------------------------------------

Some are starting to bait arguments based around "value" and for what should be included at what price. Every discussion just get obnoxious when this starts as it is only opinions and rarely is based on what the "market" is in reality. So far people are arguing for a D810 but for $2,500. That is just not going to happen because the sensor is only 24mp.

$6-7,000 gets you the no-compromise top of the line body from Nikon and Canon. That is the base line.
The cheapest FX on the market is a Sony a7 at $1,500 - and it's no "action camera" at all.
A D610 is a consumer model at $1,800.
A D810 with almost everything (has all major parts) of a D4s is $3,200.

Major parts of a DSLR: Sensor, body materials, shutter, Auto focus module, metering sensor, penta-prism, LCD screen, on camera flash. That is what can be changed to cut costs. $700 has to be cut off the D810 to reach a $2,500 price range.

The question is so what are you going to cut or downgrade to get to the $2,500 price?

KnockKnock

If I were to run into enough money to afford something like this alleged D750, I think one primary concern would be button placement. I like the classic left row of buttons Nikon uses. Have held all of the current models and the D5xxx series is the toughest one to get used to. It's the least close to the classic SLR ergonomics of composing with the eye in the viewfinder.

I'm a toy geek and can adjust to many interfaces - so not a deal breaker. Still....

PB_PM

So far people are arguing for a D810 but for $2,500. That is just not going to happen because the sensor is only 24mp.

Nobody is arguing that at all, at least not that I've seen. I think your imagination is running wild. Just because the camera will be smaller and lighter does not mean it has to be a cheap plastic consumer camera, with compromised build quality and controls. It's more likely that Nikon will use a lighter weight, but strong material (carbon fibre vs magnesium alloy) in the bodies construction to lower the weight and allow for a slightly smaller form factor.

Sports

$700 has to be cut off the D810 to reach a $2,500 price range

Retail price is not a direct mapping of production cost.
D800 dropped in price little by little, ending at what? Hard to say ... different deals from different dealers ... Let's say 2600?
Then, D810 was introduced, using components of exactly the same quality "class", just "2014 tech" instead of "2011 tech". In addition, the D810 is built in Thailand. In other words, it "should" be 2500 in the shops, but you don't calculate pricing like that. Most companies will set the price for maximizng profit, and the price is whatever Nikon decides.
There! First guy to argue for a $2.500 D810 ) But I know they can't and won't sell the D810 at that price, and that's where a model below the D810 comes in very conveniently.
(Also btw, look at Nikon flashes. They're expensive because Nikon decides so. Not because they're expensive to build.)

sevencrossing

The path to failure seems to be a short one. Kodak took it. And Nikon certainly doesn't need much more nudging to go that way.

Its a tough life

You have a range of & 7 DSLRs including the D4s The D810 and the D710

81 lenses to go with them including the Holy Trinity

and you are on the road to failure

donaldejose

What parts do you take out of a D810 to allow you to drop the price by $700 and still make a profit? That is a pretty good way to look at what cannot be in a D750. I hope the D4s/D810 AF module won't be one of the parts Nikon takes out but they do have to cut costs somewhere and we don't know where.

Photobug

Why? because the D750 is going to be a consumer camera; not a professional camera. At least I think so.

I don't think the D750 will be a consumer camera, my prediction is that it will be an advanced amateur model with features from the consumer and Pro models. Not sure why people think there is a chance it won't have video. It will or it won't sell.

donaldejose

If it really is lightweight you won't get the "pro" control layout or metal build. A lighweight body suggests a control layout like the D610. If the feature set is advanced, such as using the AF module from the D810 it will be a "pro-sumer" or "advanced amateur" camera. If it keeps using the same AF module as the D600/D610 many users will complain; especially those who frame and compose in a more advanced way. I guess exactly how we categorize it will depend upon what features it contains when it arrives.

PB_PM

What parts do you take out of a D810 to allow you to drop the price by $700 and still make a profit?

To start off:
* 24MP sensor vs 36MP sensor. There could be a significant price difference between the two chips, although I doubt it is more than a few hundred dollars.
* Don't include top of the line 51 point AF system with group AF. It could use older version from the D800.
* Smaller buffer. The 24MP sensor likely wouldn't require as large a buffer, to store the same number of images in a burst as the 36MP sensor. Thus slightly smaller buffer could be used.
* A smaller lighter body wouldn't require as much material, which would reduce costs as well.
* Skip the popup flash and related material, which would also lower the price.
* Use only SD card slots, since having two card types means additional circuity and chips.
* Lower speed Expeed 4 processor (lower binned chip)
* Don't include the newer brighter pentaprism and OLED info display in the viewfinder that are used in the D810/D4s.

Put those things together and you could easily slash the dollar value off the price.