Nikon D750

I think this article gets it right, I do see a gradual downward trending of DSLR usage Context: I consider myself a serious amateur photographer. I own a Nikon full frame DSLR (D750) as well as a slew of Nikon professional prime an zoom lenses. I also own a Nikon N80 film camera, and a 30+ year old Nikon FE2 camera. I also did large format photography and had a Shen Hao HZX 4X5 Camera as well as a 60+ year old Graphlex Crown Graphic 4x5 camera and a Mamiya RB76 medium format camera (sold those a few years ago). Oh, and I also own a Fuji X100F mirrorless (I wanted a high quality camera that was easier to carry than my DSRL+lenses). The only recent manufacturer I can think of that came out with a DSLR was Nikon (with the D780) and they ae possibly coming out with a D850 successor. I don't see any new full frame DSLR cameras being produced (I still expect to see consumer level DSRL cameras). But this does not mean the cameras will die out, since there is a robust used market. The D750 was first produced in 2014, I bought one in 2019 (it was my first full frame DSLR, prior I had a D300 DX camera). It is 24 MP, which is still pretty decent and should last me for a couple more years. Some of my DSLR lenses (which are compativle with the Nikon N80) I bought used (great way to save money). For me, since I intend to stick with Nikon, moving to mirroless at this point makes no sense because a) For the type of photos I take, does not make a difference. 24 MP is plenty enough for me htt

I made a "laser-beam-break" camera trigger for my Nikon D750, which I use to capture images of hummingbirds at my feeder. Instead of paying $125 for this ... ( https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1337050-REG/pluto_tri... ) I decided to build one using an Arduino. I probably spent more than $125 on the project, but I ended up buying a lot of hobbyist electronics parts, soldering gun, etc. I learned a bit about what Arduino can do, learned some baby electronics. And I have some nice pics of hummingbirds. https://flickr.com/photos/184781347@N05/52648636091/in/datep... https://flickr.com/photos/184781347@N05/52325370300/in/datep...

Obviously you don't look at close detail on computer, which is very strange for seemingly such a power photo user. Phones these days are good but not yet that good if you don't do some beginner mistakes with camera. Maybe Pixel 7 pro based on samples I saw, but definitely not ie iphone 13 pro max. What people often mean by similar statements is they like default phone processing compared to 0 in the camera, and there is enough detail due to tons of light and due to landscapes being generally easiest scene to shoot. As for why they are not comparable, also a very strange question from seemingly experienced photo shooter - compare software development department and budget in Apple vs Nikon, who is a tiny player we all love (have D750 since it came out and carried it everywhere up to 6000m), they use very specialized CPUs which are very good for 1 thing only (basic operations on raw sensor data and potential jpeg transformation), and various ML and stacking transformations aren't simply available there at performance required. The whole construction of camera and processing hardware isn't around snapping 30 pics and combining them together under 1s, pre-taking pictures before actually hitting shutter etc.

Is there a reason the cameras can't capture the raw data to be processed later? That would also provide more artistic control, which is desirable on a professional/prosumer device. (I'd also question the "near-mirrorless-level" statement. My iPhone's camera is quite good, but my Nikon D750—admittedly not mirrorless, but a professional camera—is still on another level.)

Lidar is actually really useful for portraits, Samsung S22 ultra uses it extensively and can find a single hair strand it doesn't blur compared to the background. Everything looks more realistic compared to pure software processing where I can spot errors quickly. As frequent user my good old Nikon full frame (D750), I am really astonished by output these tiny cameras produce. Sure, its not for big screen/print unless we're talking about sunny day. But for everything else, it makes fantastic portraits. I got fed up with the need to carry big heavy pouch around all the time, and missed way too many pictures of my kids to rely on it anymore. It also sees in the dark much better than I do with my eyes, also thanx to Lidar - the pics I take from night walks where there is basically no light source hundreds meters around and I am in the forest (yes my night walks take me sometimes to interesting places, I normally don't use any light). Very dark scene becomes full of (usually) true colors and details simply invisible to me. 10x zoom on my phone allows me to read signs not readable to my eyesight (digital 'AI' zoom is very useful up to cca 30x). I was skeptical too, and its true full frame is still so far ahead, but at what cost - bulk, weight, the need to spend hours on postprocessing batch of photos instead of quick edits in phone in few seconds.

We still have some ways to go in low light. My room is lit by 2 40W incandescent light bulbs. This is more light than a typical urban sidewalk or restaurant at night. This is low enough light that the difference in video quality of my iphone 13 pro (2021) and nikon D750 (2014) full frame camera is night and day. However I agree that there are times now where I can confidently use my phone where 10 years ago I would have had a dedicated camera. Phones are only going to keep getting better!