D750 vs. anything else in the price range?

DPStewart

DPStewart

Veteran
Hello all,

Like many of you, I need the best video quality I can get from a camera in this price range - JUST THE CAMERA.
We have so many other expenses in the production line - lights, rigging, stabilizers, lenses, cases, computers...etc...etc...
I know there's the A7s and maybe perhaps it a contender, but I don't want to get into a need for expensive external recorders for RAW or other add-ons just to complete the camera's function - I can't afford that this year.

My research so far is pointing to the D750, the D810, the A7s, and the 5DIII as the field. I'm only interested in Full Frame cameras as I already have a hacked GH2.

The 5DIII and the D810 are more than I'd like to spend, but if there's a real justification for the extra $$$ I could make the push.

So my question is: Is there any deal-breaking flaw on the D750 that might have been over looked in the basic reviews? Is the Sony A7s "that much" better in image quality than the D750 WITHOUT add-ons like an external recorder for 4K and separate audio recorders?

What are your thoughts on the current field here?

Thanks much!
 
The A7s is a huge step up from the GH2. You will realize how much of a difference there is. The GH2 has only better resolution.

I'm still trying to get the hang of exposure. Even though it is a low light monster it still needs light - at least one extra stop or sometimes two depending on what is being shot. This means you will be exposing at 800 or 1600 ISO if you want the max dynamic range. If the exposure isn't nailed, the image will have a lot of noise (mushy) and there's no turning back. Even in the Shogun example comparing the A7s with the FS7, there was some mushy noise in the A7s, but this could be due to how it was graded. Sometimes it cannot be pushed to hard depending on the dynamic range in a scene. The FS7 was less noisy in comparison and slightly sharper.

Secondly, I am having some trouble with tungsten lights. The lights produce deep saturated yellows/oranges that I cannot balance back. I found Blackmagic cameras better at white balance. I still need to experiment more with white balance before drawing my conclusions.

Generally speaking, if exposure and white balance are properly dialed in the A7s, the image can look nice and clean. Sometimes, because of the scene's dynamic range or mixed lighting, there can be an unexpected blooper which can get frustrating in post.

I have no other experience with the other DSLRs, but if stills is a priority maybe they are a better balance for general video and decent stills. Otherwise, my guess is that the A7s is the best camera for video amongst your list, unless you bring out the 5D MKIII RAW.
 
Last edited:
The A7s doesn't have any more workflow difficulties than the D750, no raw or external devices needed. They both record 1080p internally but the a7s just adds the option of being able to ouput a 4K signal over HDMI should you need it in the future.

Compared to the D750, the A7s for video has many advantages, the only disadvantage is getting great looking colours straight off the card. The image needs a bit more grading to get to the pleasing Nikon colour look.

Otherwise the A7s has better 1080p resolution, better lowlight performance, better dynamic range, lower artifacts, just a better image overall except for colour ease of grade.

The A7s also has many usability advantages for video like an EVF, peaking, zebras, etc...

To summurize it will depend on how much you value easy pleasing colour. Look at video samples online before making the choice. These cameras are the best in that price range, unless you're willing to go Raw with a 5D.
 
The A7s has pretty bad rolling shutter, I don't know if that would be an issue for you or not; and I'm not sure how bad the D750's is with rolling shutter.
Here's DP Review's assessment of the D750.

P.S. Merry Christmas y'all.
 
At some point next year, the D750 will likely emerge as the best self-contained 1080p full-frame video DSLR.

At the moment, however, two external factors give the D800 a significant advantage over the D750:

* Mosaic Engineering's VAF-D800 optical low-pass filter eliminates video moire on the D800. They haven't yet announced whether this filter (or the comparable VAF-D600 filter) will work compatibly with the D750.

http://www.mosaicengineering.com/products/vaf/d800.html

* The D800 (and D600) can record video at increased bitrates up to 64Mbps, using custom firmware courtesy of the folks at Nikon Hacker. Increasing the bitrate allows you to more accurately capture fine shadow details when using a boosted gamma curve to record video. It will not be possible to hack the D750 until Nikon releases the first firmware update for that camera.

https://nikonhacker.com/index.php?sid=7addea226894492d2eec7f43d201b6f7
 
Lpowell said:
At some point next year, the D750 will likely emerge as the best self-contained 1080p full-frame video DSLR.

At the moment, however, two external factors give the D800 a significant advantage over the D750:

* Mosaic Engineering's VAF-D800 optical low-pass filter eliminates video moire on the D800. They haven't yet announced whether this filter (or the comparable VAF-D600 filter) will work compatibly with the D750.

http://www.mosaicengineering.com/products/vaf/d800.html

* The D800 (and D600) can record video at increased bitrates up to 64Mbps, using custom firmware courtesy of the folks at Nikon Hacker. Increasing the bitrate allows you to more accurately capture fine shadow details when using a boosted gamma curve to record video. It will not be possible to hack the D750 until Nikon releases the first firmware update for that camera.

https://nikonhacker.com/index.php?sid=7addea226894492d2eec7f43d201b6f7
Click to expand...


1- It doesn't need the filter because it already has no aliasing or moire issues. Clean image.

2- The D750 has a better image than the hacked D600/800, by a good margin... plus they're hacked.

I think recommending the D600 or D800 with the mention of the VAF filter and hack is just bad advice.

The a7s is better than the D750 in everyway, except for

-Easily pleasant colours
-Less rolling shutter
-The still advantage

While the A7s has

-better resolution at 1080p
-Outputs 4K through HDMI
-better dynamic range
-lower noise at higher ISOs
-S-Log gamma and extensive fine-tuning to the image parameters
-A great s35 crop mode (D750s is no good)
-A great s16 crop mode
-EVF
-Peaking
-Smaller/lighter body
-Has a very neat XLR audio module similar to the one on the C100/300,
-Much more adaptable lens mount (E-mount)

Plus there's the light leak issue with the d750 that would make me steer away from that direction completely...
 
The a7s strong and weak points listed here actually don't do much to bolster it.
The color issue goes far beyond "quick out-of-camera" image quality, because you can't correct to an "unlimited anything". Correcting bad yellows will push/pull on your oranges, which will push/pull on your reds...etc...etc.
There are plenty of real-world post reasons to get as close to your desired image IN-CAMERA. The main reason being this little thing we call 8-bit 4:2:2.
I have also observed that MOST DSLR videos will not end up getting full-on professional grading done to them because if you are the type of shooter that ALWAYS gets professional grading done to every single video you shoot - then chances are you shoot with a $10,000+ camera.
Canon has ruled the DSLR video world because their video has looked the best directly out-of-camera. That matters. A lot.
Of course one can spend time and resources grading Panasonic (or other's) video....BUT DO YOU? Every time? The constant need to significantly grade my Panasonic videos grates on my nerves sometimes - and there have been many random-whim videos I have shot on it that I never let out because they weren't really important enough to merit the extra effort grading them....so they just kind of fade away to the island of unwatched videos. My friends who shoot 5D's and 6D's don't have that problem.
Yeah, it matters.

Focus peaking in camera? Yeah, that's a significant plus for the A7s - I'll give it that.

D750's dual card slots that can record in different modes including while using the HDMI output - HUUUUGE plus.

A7s having better resolution? Maybe, maybe not, but resolution by itself is not a virtue anymore. With a full-frame camera we are so frequently shooting with a shallow depth of field that we are blurring out all that resolution anyway. There is almost always more than enough resolution on these cameras for the main subject in such a shot.

4k on the Sony? Never gonna happen. I say that because if I had $2K for a Shogun, which doesn't really even exist yet out there in the working world, and the money for more expensive media and post-computers, then I wouldn't even be looking at these cameras.
By the time the Shogun penetrates the market and by the time a DSLR shooter can afford all the extra cost - newer generation cameras will already be out and the A7s will be only a memory.

I don't shoot sports or landscape/real estate so hyper sharpness and absolute resolution matters very little. Image Quality rules the day, and quality DOES NOT only mean resolving power. If it did, the Canon 5D would not be the reigning champ in sales and use that it has been.

Now dynamic range - this IS a significant area.
The DR of the D750 already clearly beats the 5DIII, and while not by a lot, it certainly puts it in the realm of very serious video image quality.
While I am intrigued by the A7s' claim of up to 15 stops in s-log2 mode, I have not seen a lot of talk of its DR when NOT in s-log2 mode.
I have seen a few s-log2 videos from the A7s that look fantastic! - and I've seen a ton of videos from the A7s that I think look terrible.
Almost everything I have seen shot with a D750 or D810 look pretty nice AT THE WORST.
In the real world of day-to-day shooting....this makes an important difference.

Size? Irrelevant. All these cameras are of such a basically similar size that I find it makes almost no difference when actually shooting.

If the first thing people said about the A7s was IMAGE QUALITY (color and character) then I would be far more convinced....
As it stands, I think I have to agree with LPowell (who authored the excellent hack I use every day on my GH2) that the D750 is looking to be the best single and self-contained DSLR camera for video work over the next year or two. The reflection-flare issue on the Nikon will probably be corrected by the time I can even buy one anyway now that the source of the reflection has been pin pointed.
The fantastic stills capability will just be icing on the cake.
 
Last edited:
I went for the a7s because it has better DR. It also has an EVF that I can use for shooting video, and a better codec, but it does have worse rolling shutter, and regarding color you'll find people going either way. Cameras are so good these days (a7s, D750/D810, 5D3+RAW, GH4, pocket) that it's mostly a matter of taste. Which means we (the consumers) won.

What do you care the most about?
In my case, it's DR, so I went for the a7s.
 
OK - for those following this thread:

I found this INCREDIBLE video made on the A7s - https://vimeo.com/101833709
It's what we all want. It's that good.
But at a HUGE cost.

1. It was shot in the "S-log2" gamma setting with the matching picture profile and this is NOT a flexible way to approach shooting even if it can deliver great results. The extensive requirements of shooting with these settings is detailed here: http://www.xdcam-user.com/2014/08/e...-on-the-sony-a7s-part-one-gamma-and-exposure/ (Most notably the required 3200 ISO setting, but there's more than just that, and this means there are going to be MANY shooting scenarios that will be very hard to make this work in.)

2. While this example looks gorgeous - almost all the A7s footage I've seen that was NOT shot this way has been marred by awful colors or an unnatural "videoish" look. Bummer.

3. This example was shot with a $2,000 lens with a $400 adapter to get it onto the A7s. Now, I know there are some here who can afford that kind of outlay for ONE LENS, but I'd make a big wager that the vast majority of us reading this thread, and who are in the market for a camera in this range, really don't have that kind of money for ONE LENS - and by the time we do...the camera has long since been replaced by newer models. That was my point in the original post about needing to spend a lot on all the other equipment needed in the production chain.

For someone who has a lot of experience or a lot of cash - I can see why the A7s would be appealing. Also, people who specialize in camera duties and don't need to spend money on lights, rigging, stabilizers, etc...

Sadly, I have still NOT found many serious example videos shot on the D750. Like with people just getting steady shots of nice complex scenes - like the person who made the video posted here did.
I would LOVE to see a video just like this but made on the D750. No skateboarders, no backyard bushes, no shaky hand-held throw away stuff. Please?

If I can find a camera shop anywhere near me that will rent me a D750 then I'd be happy to make just such a video - but I have not been able to find one yet. Ugh..

Here's a nice example of how horrible an A7s can look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVe_LFgCcA4 (Yeah, it looks great until human beings with living flesh enter the picture - YIKES!)
My experience with Canons and lower model Nikons has shown me that something this bad almost never happens (within reason, of course!)
Right now I need a camera that, while never reaching the absolute top, also never pitches me into the crapper.
I know the D810 can do that - I'd just REALLY love to save $1,000 and also get the articulating screen.


More on this heart pounding story as it developes...
 
Last edited:
You're putting an impressive amount of consideration into your purchase....if you can't rent the Nikon maybe you could buy and return from somewhere like BH if you're not happy? I love the idea of the D750...I shot the "MONKEY!" vid on my sig with the D5300, and I was surprised how nicely it turned out. I too love Nikon's colours, and buying Nikon mount lenses comforts me for when I switch cameras. Plus I like shooting stills, and I can't imagine going to Canon with their current dr.

Anyway, that vid was all run and gun, with no exposure or focusing tools (well, autofocus to gain initial focus). I've been very tempted by the D750, particularly the zebras and the higher res screen. I'm wondering if it's possible to manual focus with that screen, which is so damn tough with the D5300...Nikon still don't have peaking on their cameras. And I'd be surprised if it wasn't a better, more resolute image than on the D5300.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link to the detailed article on using S-Log2 gamma on the Sony A7s. The author explained many exposure concepts that are important for Nikon users to know as well. The article's discussions of the technical limitations of Rec-709 dynamic range and H.264 bit-depth are concise and accurate and clearly illustrate the challenges involved in capturing high-contrast images on modern video cameras. I don't doubt that the recommended techniques produce excellent results using S-Log2 gamma on the Sony A7s.

With respect to Nikon cameras, however, I think a different approach can produce optimal results with better shadow detail and less reliance on post-production LUT's and color correction. Much like the A7s, Nikon cameras also support Picture Profiles which enable you to select a gamma curve well-suited to your subject matter. While the Nikon D810 and D750 both offer a Flat Picture Profile similar to Sony's S-Log2 gamma, the article shows quite graphically the kind of results you can expect to get. First, an image shot with a standard Rec-709 (i.e. 2.2) gamma:

http://www.xdcam-user.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Slog-709-FH.jpg

Compare this to an image shot with Sony's S-Log2 gamma:

http://www.xdcam-user.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/S-log2-correct-FH-1024x576.jpg

Aside from looking dingy and desaturated, notice two important things about the S-Log2 image: increased highlight detail in the clouds, with no significant improvement in shadow detail. When exposed in the recommended manner, S-Log2 gamma basically gives you increased highlight detail at the expense of degrading contrast and saturation in the midrange, while leaving dark areas unchanged.

As the article points out, the intent of using S-Log2 gamma is not to produce well-balanced images in-camera, but to compress a high-dynamic-range image into the limited Rec-709 range. The acknowledged drawback, however, is that the limited 8-bit depth of H.264 recordings degrades the color and luminance resolution of the low-contrast, low-saturation images produced by S-Log2 gamma. The author's point that the 50Mbps bitrate of the XAVC-S codec in the A7s reduces H.264 compression artifacts is no doubt correct, and confirmed by the results I've obtained from increasing the stock ~20Mbps bitrate of Panasonic and Nikon cameras to 50+Mbps. However, no amount of bitrate boosting can overcome the inherent bit-depth limitations of an 8-bit video encoder. The only way to avoid that pitfall is to ensure that important areas of your image are well-exposed with enough local contrast to preserve their details.

To compensate for the highlight bias of Sony's S-Log2 gamma, the article shows an example of using up to 3 stops of over-exposure:

http://www.xdcam-user.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/A7s-over-exposure.jpg

The author's assessment, however, is that on the A7s, this technique is limited only to reducing visible noise in the image! Look closely at the four exposures; do you see any significant improvement in midrange or shadow detail? What this reveals to my eye is that the S-Log2 gamma truncates shadow and midrange detail regardless of exposure level, and that's not the kind of results I'm looking for. The problem I see in these examples is poor resolution of shadow details, and an overall look that renders shadows noticeably darker than they appear in real life, both in-camera and after post-production.

My fundamental issue with all types of "flat" gamma curves is that they propose a one-size-fits-all solution to an extremely broad set of challenges. The ideal exposure and dynamic range of an outdoor scene in broad daylight is vastly different from the type of exposure you need for stage lighting at an indoor nighttime event. The contrast desired for a landscape shot is nothing like what you use for an intimate portrait shot. What I want is not a fixed panacea that requires intensive post-production work to produce superior results. I just want the ability to set highlight exposure and shadow detail independently of each other, in-camera where I can immediately preview the expected results.

Those familiar with my work on custom Nikon Picture Profiles already know what I'm leading up to: there is no single gamma curve that suits all shooting circumstances, and with H.264 cameras you really have to judge each scene individually. The standard Rec-709 gamma of 2.2 was chosen not for optimal image capture; it was designed for comfortable television viewing in subdued lighting. In my work, I typically boost the in-camera gamma by factors ranging from 1.4 to 2 times the Rec-709 standard. That allows me to lower my ISO and highlight exposure without plunging my shadow details into blackness. With Nikon cameras, lowering the ISO increases dynamic range and decreases noise (so long as you don't under-expose your highlights). On the Sony A7s with its native ISO of 3200, reducing ISO below that point provides no benefits in image quality. For me, the choice is clear: customized in-camera gamma control rather than flattened images that require post-production wizardry. That is why I currently use Nikon cameras.
 
Last edited:
Apart from what is mentioned, many users report weak battery life on A7s. Nikon d750 lacks 1:1 focus assist during recording. There is also a recording limit of 20min in 24,25,30p and 10min in 50,60p.
 
Last edited:
My a7S battery life tests:


Sony battery, new, from bag: 90 minutes of continuous recording to go from 100% to 8%
Sony battery, old, just charged: 82 minutes of continuous recording to go from 100% to auto-switch-off.
Cheap battery, old, from bag: 47 minutes to go from 89% to auto-switch-off.
Cheap battery, new, just charged: 89 minutes to go from 100% to auto-switch-off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top