Got To Shoot D700 Today

Its amazing how everyone is marveling at the D700......Canon had its 5D 12mp sensor almost 3 years ago, who trumped who?

I opened that ISO 3200 shot in PSE3 and did some pixel peeping. Very impressive! The D700 + 50/1.4 is gonna be a low-light

champ for sure.

 

One curious thing. PSE3 couldn't read the EXIF data. Did you save of the file for web, or something like that? Or is there some

format changes with the new bodies that require a later version of the editing software?

 

Can't wait to get my hands on the D700.

I agree Bryan, every forum I check is flooded with D700 articles and more strange how suddenly people realized that they are not happy with their D300's complaining about poor ISO performance, lack of dimension in pic's, worse IQ compared to this and that, etc.. But we're leaving in a consuming world, and thats how it goes..

Geez, I still thnk my D200 is phenomenal... I actually will convert to FX in due course (probably two years), because I'd like my 85mm and 150mm to be just that, but IQ isn't the driving force. I wonder, at prints up to 12x18, if anyone would be able to see a difference between a D300 and a D700 image.<div></div>

I don't understand this "lack of dimension" thing. What does that mean? I didn't realize my D300 was a 3D camera

- perhaps dyslexia is playing a role here with the camera name?

Bill, I think you're right on the money. The D200-D300-D700 upgrade path is way to hard on the pocketbook. But take the D300 out

of that equation and it makes more sense. With a D200-D700 path, you get the better low light performance, better rear-panel

display, more cross-point AF sensors (just beter AF all around), FX (a real biggie), live view, better viewfinder (I hope), better high-

rate shooting, and tethered connector covers (yeah, I said that), etc. I am really, really glad I didn't drop the coin on a D300 right

now.

I agree on the auto-focus Dan, BUT isn't the D700 finder 95% (not 100% like the D300). I would love a 100% viewfinder.

Regarding flat images, first learn how to print, rather then blame the camera. I never get a perfect image out of my D200 either, but with some PS work the prints are amazing. It surprises me how few people understand color theory, how to make a fine print, but blame the mfr right away and are soon out shopping for a better camera and later giving us an expert opinion of the camera their dissapointed with. It's usually the photographer, not the camera at fault.

The FF sensor does not interest me. All my glass is pro (24-70 2.8, 70-200VR 2.8, 105VR 2.8, 300mm 2.8) and I don't have any DX lenses. However, I would not sacrifice the advantages that DX gives me ... to downgrade to a FF camera. I certainly would own a D3 already if I wanted FF. Leaving a D3 set to DX means you have a very expensive 5MP camera. For me, I have no desire for a FF body, nor the large, costly, heavy glass I would need to lug around to get the same shots I do now. My most used lens is my 300mm f/2.8 which is quite easy to carry. I have no desire to spend more money to get the exact same shot but have to carry around a 500mm lens. (and lose an f/stop to boot).

I totally agree with Van Camper. I haven't forsaken my D200 which, although not as great in low light as it's predecessors, still takes damn good photos as measured by the only criteria and end result that has any value to me - THE PRINT. If someone asked me which piece of equipment of the many, many thousands of dollars (and untold hours in vested in the learning curve) I've spent on cameras, lenses, filters, tripods, monopods, software, etc, that I value most it would be my $900 Epson R2400, hands down. Because in the end it's what it looks like on paper that counts, whether you're giving it to a friend, selling it to feed your addiction to upgrades, or to put food on the table.

to me th camera body is an accesory to a good lens just like a flash or even tripod .i dont know what is the big deal about the new camera and how people get so excited when they come out.most modern slr camers are very capable tools, but are we?

Well, some cameras only record half of the image that a lens projects. To me this is a big deal. I want it all to be recorded,

since generally lenses are designed with a certain angle of view in mind. Leaving a part of it out and squeezing photosites

into unreasonably small spaces exposes many problems in the lenses. FX is a huge relief after many years of uncertainty

about whether Nikon cared at all about their old customers or having actually a system of lenses.

If you are wanting to carry larger, heavier, slower, more expensive lenses and tripods to get the same shot your DX body can get with smaller lighter faster lenses, ... then yes, you need a FF body.

 

When you are standing next to me with your tripod and 500mm f/4 lens, and I am getting the same shot with my cheaper, lighter, 300mm f/2.8 handheld ... (at f/2.8 not f/4) ... then we can decide who has the huge relief. And to pay more for all that weight and bulk?

 

Perhaps wide angle shooters care about FF.

 

For what I shoot, there are no advantages going to FF ... only disadvantages.

Hey J.C your shot at ISO 3200 is amazing, really good and NO PP. Im wondering how much my wedding pictures can be improved with the 700! I will upgrade for sure and let my D300 (another grate camera) as a backup. FF is the future, no doubt about!!

Cheers from Brazil

Antonio

<i>If you are wanting to carry larger, heavier, slower, more expensive lenses and tripods to get the same shot your DX

body can get with smaller lighter faster lenses, ... then yes, you need a FF body.</i>

<p>

How is my 28/2 (FX) slower than an equivalent lens for DX? How about the 50/1.4? Would like to put a 50mm lens with a

DX body and compare it with the 85/1.4 and an FX body for a head and shoulders shot? Almost all high-end lenses are

designed for specific purposes. Very few were designed so that most of the image was to be cropped every time.

<p>

What <i>was</i> the lightest good f/2.8 wide angle for DX? Oh, it's the 17-55 DX. So tiny, so lightweight.

<p>

<i>When you are standing next to me with your tripod and 500mm f/4 lens,</i>

<p>

I wouldn't be. I don't need a 500mm lens. And if you think that your DX camera with the 300mm would be of comparable

quality to the shot of an FX camera with a 500mm lens (on a tripod), you're dreaming.

<p>

<i>Perhaps wide angle shooters care about FF.</i>

<p>

Yes, <i>perhaps.</i> And anyone who shoots in low light. And anyone who cares about seeing the subject clearly in the

viewfinder. And anyone who uses PC lenses and wants to see the tilt more clearly. And anyone who wants to shoot a portrait with a portrait

lens. The list is a long list.

Just chiming in to add my amazement at the 3200 ISO shot. That's just incredibly clean, especially given the state of the art say 4 or 5 years ago.

As I said, perhaps wide angle shooters care about FF.

 

And, as I said, I don't own any DX lenses.

 

And, as I said, "For what I shoot" ... obviously if you shoot with different needs - then you may care about FF.

 

People talk about FF like it is an advantage regardless of what you shoot - and clearly it is not.

 

You need to buy what suits your needs, and DX is far superior for my needs.

Richard, I did some simple testing this morning and you (and Bob Atkins) are correct with regard to depth of

field, particularly is point #3 and point #4:

 

 

3 If you use the same lens on a small-sensor camera and a full-frame camera and crop the full-frame image to give

the same view as the digital image, the depth of field is IDENTICAL

 

4 If you use the same lens on a small-sensor camera and a full-frame camera, then shoot from different distances

so that the view is the same, the small-sensor image will have 1.6x MORE DOF then the film image.

 

When I shoot portraits with the 5D, I tend to shoot at a longer focal length and move in closer hence the DOF

appear shallower in the prints.

Thanks for that Elliot.

 

Were you able to confirm that using different lenses which give same angle of view e.g. 50 mm and 75 mm and

opening up about 11/3 stops on the DX camera gives about the same result? Bob says as much in the quote I found

from him which I posted above.

 

Tomorrow (evening here now) I thought I might simulate this on the D40 using a crop of half the area (kind of DX

and DDXX) as I don't have a D3 or 5D :-(

Joseph,

I'm even more convinced now that there is an upgrade to the 5D soon.

Almost exactly 10 years ago Canon introduced EOS 3, the replacement for the most successful EOS 5. and it was a beast in its category. Are we seeing a history repeating.

For Nikon to release a simillar to the 5D? so quick.

Think about it.

wow...

 

yes I saved for web - but as far as i know that should not have any effect on the image. Look under the hat in the first image. That would be muddy black even on a d300 (which is nice camera but it's not this camera - sorry guys)

As for canon - all i wanted was a digital 3 and nikon built it...arghhh

Please canon get me the camera I want so i can stick with you guys and not feel like my client is paying the price...

JC

"If you are wanting to carry larger, heavier, slower, more expensive lenses and tripods to get the same shot your DX body can get with smaller lighter faster lenses, ... then yes, you need a FF body."

 

Then why even bother with DX? What you really need is a p&s.

You missed the most important words:

 

"to get the same shot".

 

Obviously not possible with a P&S.

 

:)

i'm on the upgrade from d300 to d700 also! i've used a d3 and have fallen in love with the iso, its amazing!

this is shot with a 105 2.8 on a d3, i'm hoping to do the same with the $3000 d700!

 

<img src="http://www.wutic.com/photos/events/archive/spiegelworld/photonet.jpg">