Would The New Nikon 750 Be Better For Real Estate Photography Than The D600?

November 10th, 2014

D750Reader David from Nelson, NZ asks:

Simple question…well to my mind anyway. I’m presently taking pics with a Nikon D600, but after reading so many conflicting reports about the density of sensors (aka mega mega pixels vs an ok ….say D700…number) I am left wondering that for real estate photography would a D700 be just as good as the many mega pixel units of the last few years. The word on the street is that because of the pixel density packed on to the CCD sensor, there is a field of debate around the fact that the light gathering capabilities are thus compromised. Just before I buy a D750…any realtime on the street feedback would be sincerely appreciated?

Here’s my response to David: since I’m a Canon shooter I don’t have any first hand experience with the D600, D700 or the new D750 just announced a couple of months ago. But one of my go-to sources for questions like this is They test lenses and bodies an allow you to compare key measures of image quality. One of the important measures for real estate photography is what is the dynamic range that the sensor record. Here is a comparison of the D600 to the D750 and the D810. What this comparison shows is:

  1. The dynamic range of the D750 and D810 is only very slightly better than the D600. A few tenths of an EV.
  2. The low light performance of the D750 and D810 are both slightly worse than the D600.
  3. Only the D810 has better color depth than the D600.

Given the dxomark comparison data, there doesn’t seem to be any compelling reason to upgrade from your two year old D600 to any of the new Nikon FX bodies for shooting real estate. The specs that are important for real estate are only slightly better. Does anyone out there have any hands on first hand advice for David?

Share this

11 Responses to “Would The New Nikon 750 Be Better For Real Estate Photography Than The D600?”

  • I use the D700 and D800 professionally. The D700 is the perfect real estate camera in my opinion. It’s durable/weatherproof, has all the pro controls, and the 12 megapixel file is a breeze to work with and has plenty dynamic range. I’m not surprised that a used D700 costs almost as much as a new D610 these days. It’s a fantastic camera.

  • Thanks Larry for posting this Q up there…and your input.

    In fact A.L. ….you have, truly… hit it ….100%…on the head. (and I hesitated for a 19k click’d D700 yesterday advertised on our local auction site for NZD$1000 “BUY NOW” …….awaiting an answer….it went with-in the day!)

    In fact as late as about 35minutes ago I got a “semi-answer from my biggest client.”

    Turns out I have just found out this… the last hour……the system that the Newspapers use here in NZ…prolly the same for OZ….(its termed “Ad-Compose” locally) has a limit, and after having sent a 24mb photo in last week…I had an agent phone me to say that what appears in print (don’t forget the vendor … “home owner” has paid big bucks to have displayed) is not what the local weekly real estate mag depicts.

    I have been informed tonight…..they request an image NOT MORE than 2mb????

    Explains a lot…..and in fact is more than anything … the impetus behind my original question to Larry, asked of him earlier.

    And either way….seems that progress seems to need be made somewhere other than from the “shooter” position.

    We pride ourselves down-under (google “Platinum HD”) on being in front of the curve….but…

    Anyone here with an inside knowledge of Ruperts system care to extrapolate why they only want that small min size?

    Asking a blank question now…..? Is this something to do with an overriding constraint of the dpi factor for newsprint publication?

  • Apologies – the other thing I should definitely have mentioned was the bracketing…..D600 has 3 …D700….well …lots more like my backup D300 body has.


    Rich…please feel free to pop your comments inhere…having noted you are now a D750 shooter

    …and I really want to know if it was 23 pops or 19 could of done the same photo?

  • With any camera, you essentially have to downsize to accommodate old technology institutions like newspaper and MLS. Newspapers have bigger worries that expanding photo quality…like remaining relevant and being around to even print a picture. At least locally, MLS has stepped up from 600px to 800px to now 1500px wide which is the same size I use for the web.

    Concerning the 3 bracket limit on the D600/610 (ignoring work arounds) thankfully, that is a D600/610 trait that the D750 dropped, now up to 9 exposures (5 on 2+ EV bracketing, but 9 on the more normal spacing)

  • I have both cameras. I bought the 750 right after it came out.

    The ISO on the d750 is worth the extra money all in itself. I can shoot 2x as high with no issues. It’s a cleaner noise as well. The tilting LCD is a very big help in tight situations and one of the reasons I bought the camera. We have a lot of antique homes in New England with smaller rooms. Overall, the color is much better and it’s sharper. It just produces a nicer, cleaner image.

    For working in RAW, as Adobe hasn’t released an update to LR or PS yet, you can download the DNG converter (separate app) OR update Bridge which will allow you to import via Bridge and convert to DNG at the same time. This is how I import anyway so it works well. If you import directly into LR, you’ll have to use Bridge until LR is updated.

  • Somewhat OT, but an interesting discussion nonetheless:

  • Another factor to consider when upgrading a camera body is the quality level of your lenses. Stepping up your glass could result in much better results than adding mega-pixels to a sensor that your current lenses can’t take advantage of. You could also find that larger file sizes slow you down in processing. While the large pixel count Nikons and Canons allow you to dial down the RAW image size, it’s like buying a super car and spending the bulk of time in bumper to bumper rush hour traffic.

    All that said, if it’s time to replace a high shutter count camera or one that is lacking some features that would make your life easier, you might consider an upward move to a body with more pixels and DR. Then again, if you aren’t going to take advantage of the increased picture quality (in a profit making way), you might also consider finding another copy of the same model you currently use that somebody has had sitting unused in the back of their closet cheap. All of the accessories you own such as batteries and memory cards will still be useful.

  • I own the 750 – the only issue is that LR does not support the raw files yet!!

    The roll indicator is optimal for real estate photography –

  • I think AL and David have it right here; D700 is the ultimate real estate camera in my opinion:
    > great low level light performance – so for lower-end properties with smaller budgets, you have more options to hand hold and so speed up time on site
    > file produces a slightly bigger print than A4 at 300dpi – perfect for agents, as window cards and brochures are rarely printed larger, so any more pixels are just wasted
    > RAW files are about 12MB – quicker upload time if you are outsourcing editing or backing-up to cloud services and doesn’t clog up your local hard drive so fast

    I just wish Nikon would realise that not everyone wants extra pixels and would continue development of a professional level body around the 12MP level!

Trackback URI Comments RSS

Leave a Reply