D700 Somewhat Disappointing

I find this whole comparison curious. How is this different than comparing a high performance 35mm film camera with the latest film to a 6x7cm camera and declaring the 35mm camera not worth upgrading to from your current 35mm camera. These are different tools for different purposes. The D700 was not created to produce large landscape images but rather to appeal to a broad range of photographers and with the Canon 5D and the 5D MK II.

 

Perhaps the new hasselblad digital camera or the recently announced leica would be worthy of comparison with 6x7 film.

 

Also to keep the comparison fair, if you are going to take the time to get a high resolution scan of a negative then why would you not take the time to use an appropriate tool to upsize the image from the digital camera before printing it?

 

In short, I would not want to be stuck with the limitations of a 6x7 camera while shooting a live event, nor would I want to be stuck with the limitations of a 12mp D700 or D3 if I were photographing landscapes to print mural sized prints with!

Rudi, your point is right on target.

I don't know Mike, nor have I read any of his stuff (I assume he's a Canonite), but his initial supposition that one could compare a FF DSLR against MF anything should have set off the smoke alarms. I thank Eric for taking the time to illustrate that no FF DSLR will ever be able to compete on a resolution basis with MF film. I think a far more useful comparison (anybody have time for this??) would be to run a series of comparisons of existing 35mm chrome films against the current best-on-the-block from both Nikon and Canon. That would certainly be a more appropriate AND meaningful comparison. I for one am quite happy with the results - and handling characteristics - of my D300 and D3 - they give me exactly what I want, better yet, they give my clients exactly what they want. --Rich

"I guess I don't get the joke here"

 

I believe the jokes were not made towards you, but to the OP. (see the first OP's first post)

A lot of great answers in here. I think the consensus (as it should be) is<br />

"35mm" cameras (be they film or digital) have a different focus [sic] than<br />

their medium format cousins. I have not read Reichman's article, but it<br />

would be interesting to read his technical test methods. Personally, I would<br />

say that a 12 MP DLSR can't compete with a 6x7 scanned transparency<br /><br />

 

For those interested, Thom has a matrix showing "comfort zones" of print sizes<br />

from various MP sensors: http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm<br /><br />

 

Although a bit off-topic, I'd like to touch on the brief white balance discussion<br />

in this thread. First off, it's my opinion that all DSLR's perform [consistently] poorly<br />

in any light other than that of a 25% cloudy day (outdoors of course) - I'm speaking<br />

about a DSLR in AWB mode. And they don't always get it correct out in a fairly sunny<br />

day, either. It's my experience, even with the high-end D3 - if I fire off a sequence<br />

of shots (say a football play in action) 2 to 3 of the 6 shots' WB will be off. The reason<br />

for this is that the camera must continue to make a decision about what the light source is.<br /><br/>

 

With that said, everyone should ALWAYS shoot with a CWB setting, be it either in-camera<br />

or in post processing - in other words, dont trust the AWB setting.

In my totally uninformed opinion, DSLRs are just catching up to 35mm film, still nowhere close to medium format film of any size, much less 6 cm x 7cm. (Do the math. 3.5 cm x ~2.5 cm < 9 cm squared., compared to 6 x 7 = 43 cm squared, a ratio of approximately one to five.)

 

When did this catching up happen? At 12 MP, 16MP, 21MP? I do not know, but I think somewhere in that range DSLRs caught up with 35mm film.

 

Those who want to produce prints of the same quality as medium format film but who cannot afford very expensive medium format digital backs are probably best advised to stay with medium format film for quite a while longer.

 

Again, this is an uninformed opinion, but I know what I like when I see it, and I still like medium format firm prints I think that we have been hearing for so long that digital is now comparable to medium format film that we have begun to believe it, although all the evidence seems to be to the contrary. Digital has the advantage of speed, and especially of allowing us to avoid scanning, but has it really caught up? I venture to say that even the medium format digital backs will not equal the quality of digital format film.

 

Those who have switched to digital for business reasons will probably be the last to admit this, along with total neophytes who have no idea.

 

--Lannie

Simple question - how does D700 compare to good 35 mm slide film, tripod, using same lens? Medium format is not a fair comparison. I find myself still using ISO 100 slide film a lot, particularly for wide angle scenes.

 

The D700 is definitely under consideration - how does it compare to say Astia 100F in image quality?. I find myself still using film a lot for non-resolution reasons - viewfinder, wide angle, smaller depth of field. The D700 would make the transition to digital complete.

-- "But of course that kills the feel of any existing lighting and 9 times of 10 just results in a boring to look at photo."

 

Really? I beg to differ. For $5k you can plant your own wireless controlled strobes, alter the lighting to match your photography, and make things MUCH more interesting. Oh, it helps to learn how to use artificial light properly.

The inverse square law also applies to sensors.

 

To double the resolution of a 10 mp sensor you need 4 times the pixels - twice as long both vertically and horizontally.

 

Buy a back for your MF camera.

Boys toys! Digital is fast, convenient, expensive and so-so quality. Analog is still getting better as long as scanners evolve and

they do. I listened to a Kodak salesman in 1997 who told us a Kodachrome 25 resolution is about 25 Mpix. I still belive that,

happily taking pictures with my D70s and 5D.

I guess I must be easy to please but I have been getting 16"x20" prints from White House Custom Color <whcc.com> all

summer using up interpolated files from my D40 (to 300ppi CS3 Bicubic Larger). The originating NEF is 6 mpx. The detail

and general rendition basically knocks me out..... just generally speaking. Even viewed quite closely, there is to my way of

seeing, plenty of detail. If the shot fails, its not because there is not enough resolution.

 

I never understand these discussions.....most of the time, even monitor resolution (> 100 ppi ?) looks great to me at

comfortable viewing distance. Also, very few of my large B&W prints from years ago have nearly as much "working" detail

as I can get from my D40......the only thing I really miss is that with TriX, you could misjudge the correct exposure by a

country mile and still get a print (1-2 stops).

I really expected the D700 to have dramatically better resolution than the D200.

 

Unless you wait several generations the improvement have got more to do with hype than actual image quality. However,the cash outlay is not.

 

The internet is about hype and selling you the latest and greatest.

The combination of my D200 and 17-55mm is all I need to get great images which will print up to 36 x 24"

I would like to upgrade to the D300 but now see no need to go up any further than that. Thanks for the information.

It ain't the meat it's the motion... t<div></div>

Eric, getting back to your original post. The 24-70 isn't at its best at 24mm f/8; it's a "PJ" optimized lens great for wide

apertures but there are better 24/25mm lenses for shooting at 24mm at f/8. I know this doesn't help you if that's the

lens you're considering but just something to keep in mind.

 

Did you do any shooting with the 28/1.4 and 85/1.4? To me that's where some of the greatest benefits of the

D700 are: image quality at wide apertures. I don't have the 28/1.4 but the 85/1.4 does give excellent results already

around f/1.8. Try it out for available light people shots and compare with results that you can get with your D200. As long

as you shoot at f/2.8 or wider, you should see a quite considerable improvement in detail compared to the D200.

 

At mid-apertures, the pixel count often limits results more than the lens, but wide open you do get the benefits from larger sensor area.

I've been happy with Nikon DSLRs. but I've never expected any of them to replace medium format film. I'll buy a D700 soon because I shoot indoor basketball and the high ISO performance is superior to film.

Though I'm still a hobbyist with a camera, I have enjoyed and read all of the posts in here with great detail and

admiration for those of you that are technically advanced with these little black boxes :D

 

I'm a D80 user for now, having upgraded from a D70 because the latter had fell in a pond and couldn't be repaired.

 

Having said that, I'm in the market for a new camera and reserve the D80 as a back up. I had considered purchasing

the D700 thinking this would be the ultimate upgrade (budget wise) but now I feel I may go back and look at the D300

again as my main shooter.

 

Most of my work is shot without flash so would there be any benefit to spending the extra ducks to get the D700 over

the D300? And yeah..all of my lens are DX and I understand that the crop factor would come into play with a D700?

Douglas- if all your lenses are DX then you would have to buy full frame lenses for the D700.

Ilkka, yes, I took some images with the D700 with both the 28mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 AFD lenses. By f/2.8, both lenses produced excellent sharpness from center to edge. Then again, both lenses produced exceptional sharpness on the D200.

 

 

Yesterday, for the hell of it I took some pix with the D700 and the 14mm f/2.8 ED Nikkor at ISO 1600. Shooting at f/8.0, the results weren't bad. However, I'm sure Nikon could improve this lens by updating it.

 

 

Again, the newish 24-70mm f/2.8 produced excellent sharpness on the D700. Enlarging to 12x18 inches, the issue isn't lens sharpness- its insufficient resolution.<div></div>

... and ...<div></div>

Eric, you can always wait for Nikon's answer to the Sony A900 or the Canon 5 D MK II. It is sure to come eventually.

Since you're interested in large prints you can wait a little while. For me the interest in FX is lens compatibility and

low light possibilities.

 

When you tested the 28mm on FX, it should be compared against the fastest lens you have on DX that has the

same field of view as 28mm on FX. If you shoot the 28mm on DX, then the appropriate lens to compare with would be

approximately 43mm on FX; 35 or 50 could be considered for the test.

 

When I tested my ZF 50/1.4 + D3 against the 35/2 ZF + D200 (almost perfect match in FOV), both lenses at f/2, I

found the

image taken with the D3 at ISO 3200 was sharper than the D200 image at ISO 200; the test was made on tripod and

convinced that 12 MP FX is just the ticket for me. I also sometimes make large prints but I shoot so much stuff that

doesn't get printed larger than A4, the extra processing time and storage from 24 MP would force me to get a high

end computer system or spend even more time on post-processing (currently this takes probably 30% of my free

time...). As of now I can wait for a few years before a high resolution FX sensor. When computers can deal with it

comfortably, I'll be using one too. As of now, there is so much to shoot and exploit in current equipment that I don't

miss higher resolution options at all. BTW I also use the Mamiya 7, but am considering selling it as I have limited

time and too much equipment.

As far as the 14mm prime goes, you may want to look into the 14-24mm as a replacement. The zoom is reported in several

places to be superior optically and they cost about the same new, so in effect the prime has been replaced by the zoom.

 

For me, 14mm is way too wide on FX ... I don't have the brains to get good images with such a wide lens.

Yes, we've sold a couple of the 14-24mm f/2.8s with D3s. Its a beautiful zoom and I doubt Nikon will ever revamp the 14mm.

Yes, we've sold a couple of the 14-24mm f/2.8s with D3s. Its a beautiful zoom and I doubt Nikon will ever revamp the 14mm.

I'm sorry about the double posting. P.net has hanging up all afternoon. Its seeming like changes in the banner ad at the bottom of the page suddenly soaks up a bunch of bandwidth?