D700 Somewhat Disappointing

Most of the places I go on the web have become tiresome because they load up so much stuff it takes forever. Things started going downhill about 6 months ago. I wonder if net nerds will begin to realize that traffic is falling off. Too much monetizing and metrics.

Gosh, you need some real help. I make absolutely TACK sharp 17" x 25" prints from my D700. I also make very sharp 2' x 3' prints. Very sharp at most ant viewing distance over 12". Obviously (to me) you are doing something (or many things) very wrong. Please feel free to e-mail me. Perhaps with a few e-mails back and forth I can help you. Yesterday I made a 5' high vertical print from my D200. Looked great from 2' away. My MF equipment could never do this. If you like, I can uprez and send you the file. It is HUGE.

Steve, if five-foot prints from your D200 look good to you, God bless. Poster quality isn't acceptable to me- if I can't look at the print from a foot away, I won't bother making it. If it isn't photographic quality, I'm not interested.

 

 

I'd note that I've now done a couple of 12x18 inche prints from D700 images uprezzing from 230+ pixels per inch to 300 pixels per inch. They look a little better, but still don't compare favorably to scanned MF negatives.

Eric, I've printed 20x30" prints from my D300 and they look fantastic. 12x18" prints from my D80 looked fantastic as well. You won't get that kind of quality from 35mm film, but at 12mp we're approaching medium format (6x4.5). I would say 24mp (the new Sony DSLR) will approximate 6x7cm quality. I still prefer digital over film as when you scan film you lose a lot in the first place. I'll wait for Nikon to release a D700x with 24mp before I'll consider upgrading from my excellent D300.

Just to drive some of you guys crazy(er), my 2cents:

 

I shoot both a 5D and 6x9 color negative film. It amazes me how close in image quality the 5d is to the 6x9 scans. While each

camera has advantages for certain types of photography, the 5d is about as sharp as 6x4.5 film in a final print.

 

Sure the film scan has a lot more pixels, but it is a 2nd generation copy of the image having to go through a 2nd set of optics and

the scanning sensors. It also has a bit more "noise/grain" than the digital original from the 5d.

 

Comparing pixel dimensions of the file is not a fair way to compare the two photographic processes.

So refreshing to see some real world comments; after reading so much on the somewhat over-oxygenated photo sites of late. A few comments:

 

. many believe that the 12mp sensor Nikons are as good as the pixel-rich pro Canon's, in that print output is about equal in quaility; some do add that they would also be interested in high pixel count FX sensors on Nikon bodies;

 

. I agree with Eric and Ilkka in almost all respects with regard to DSLR-MF comparisons; I have been saying for many years that landscapes, especially detail-rich (foliage, intimate landscapes) will be the last frontier for DSLR technology. And so it continues to be for me with D200 RAW images.

. re DR, Astia is very satisfying, I see little need for more DR and usually discard the extra I get from NC/Reala in post processing.

 

. DSLR strong points continue on as before the latest crop (D700, and the forthcoming 5DII): lens range and zoom flexibility, macro, tele, VR/IS, turnaround speed, file size, preview; to which we can add ultra high ISO. An impressive portfolio, one that most will find necessary for their work, but one that will not excel in all avenues.

 

. why is it not fair to compare 6x7 or MF in general to DSLRs? It is called a market, you know; and many photographers use their equipment for the same purposes, as time goes by - their interests change much less than their equipment does ;-). The second hand market certainly has marked MF down to the point where many more can use it for its strengths.

 

. using RAW with an 'outmoded' body negates advances in many improved features of later models for many uses: AF speed, frame rates, better WB, in-camera sharpening/NR, etc.

 

. flash will always look poor for real world (non studio) images; so high ISO is a major breakthrough, and not forgetting how intrusive and fussy flash is to locations, subjects and modesty.

 

. Reichmann is entitled to his views as are we all; he is probably one of those guys who is obsessed with computer tech, as many pros seem to be..it has been a surprise to see so many of them abandon large film's many advantages and superior output - excluding the mega-dollar digital 'solutions'.

 

. re 35mm vs DSLR, it is hard to justify 35mm in pure IQ terms; I still have a soft spot for discreet shooting, available light neg film rangefinders (with a Hexar AF) but again it's a specialty usage.

 

. DX was always a stop gap measure for Nikon, so I will also get a D700, in my case for wide angles and high ISO; Nikon do need to do better with a fine, slow walk around zoom (eg 24-105/4) and is it too much to ask for 2 decent light, wide primes - say a 20mm and a 28mm, using the same excellence that went into the 14-24/2.8?

 

Mr Bingham, maybe you need to consider downgrading to a D30, my reasoning being that the latest DSLR equipment may be too good for your standards..

 

Mr Lee, it may be that others see nuances in image quality (IQ in digital newspeak, just another metric, right?) such that it may be complex than you indicate. Subject matter has a lot to do with it, as do personal standards, lighting conditions, the central meaning of the image which affects what the eye is drawn to, and so on. The refrain about the next latest camera being the answer to digital IQ is rather old , is it not, especially as you believe we are already there? Maybe we all have poorer eyes than yours, and Steve's of course..

 

Scanning is of course a very big and complex area of discussion..suffice to say that, given attention to detail and software, the better desktop devices (Nikon 9000, Minolta MultiPro) deliver incredible scans from high input quality film (tripod, slow speed film, sharp lenses, technique) even at 645 that comparisons with DSLRs even at 100% plus put film ahead at moderate scan resolutions (say, 3200ppi). I am speaking of an overall measure of image quality, taking in colour fidelity and even intangibles, which are not measurable but which still may be, in fairness, factors for judgment.

 

I have 645 scans I do not expect to equal in a DSLR for some years yet..then there are always drum scanners for the ultimate quality. The whole point of MF/LF is to minimise grain for critical demands. Your comment re pixel comparisons is correct but it brings me to another decided advantage of 6x7: the tremendous file size, which permits a lot of cropping for those who do not believe that the world is always a perfect fit for their camera's aspect ratio. If you cannot see that scanned MF does not better the antique 5D output in overall IQ, perhaps I can offer a Bingham style service for email scan advice!

"The 6x7 film you can get a nice 200-300 MB scan of and make some really large beautiful prints that you could never get with 10-12MP DSLR. But take a 21MP DSLR and by turning the camera vertical and zooming in on the scene, then shoot 3 consective shots panning the camera,"

 

Sorry, that doesn't convince, as you could do the same with your MF camera or any other, scan and merge the same way. Unless I'm missing something.

There is a difference between a print which looks sharp because of image processing, and a print that looks sharp

because there is as much actual scene detail as the paper can hold. If you don't see this difference or value it

then by all means ignore this discussion!

"So refreshing to see some real world comments; after reading so much on the somewhat over-oxygenated photo sites of late." -Philip

 

 

And in my email this morning from smartshooter.com

 

 

"HOW I BOOSTED PORTRAIT QUALITY AND PROFITS by Will Crockett

 

 

presented by Moab Inkjet Paper.

 

 

Think you can't set your camera to shoot in JPEG mode and sell a $500 16x20

printed straight from your camera with NO file repairs / Photoshop? Think

again.

 

 

I've even linked the original file direct from the camera for you to download! See for yourself what your camera can do when you learn how to use it to it's max?"

"I shoot both a 5D and 6x9 color negative film. It amazes me how close in image quality the 5d is to the 6x9 scans."

 

It sounds as if you need a better scanner.

A lot of people scan their medium format with flatbeds or use commercial labs which may or may not care about the

quality of the scans or agree with how you want it done. I use LS-9000 and ICE takes care of dust nicely in color

film, saving time, and the scan quality is really good (with glass carrier). I don't mind the process at all. I

usually just scan 6x7 at 2000 ppi; if I plan to make an insanely large print then I go higher but it does come

with a penalty in space and time. Already at 20 MP the scans from 6x7 are very nice, as long as the scanner

optics are good. I got soft results from an Epson 4990 (even with glass carrier) - basically the sharpness wasn't

adequate for even a

letter size print - the LS-9000 or a Flextight give much better results even at small print sizes.

 

I think it's quite sad really, considering all the time and money put into using the somewhat clumsy and very

expensive medium format equipment, if you don't use proper scanning equipment and technique, you might as well

have used a D70.

<I>"Robert Budding , Oct 06, 2008; 08:29 a.m.<P>

"I shoot both a 5D and 6x9 color negative film. It amazes me how close in image quality the 5d is to the 6x9 scans."<P><P>

 

It sounds as if you need a better scanner."</I><P>

 

I use a Nikon filmscanner with the glass carrier. It's quite good and sharp. The 5d is not as detailed as 6x9, but it is surprisingly close,

and grainless.<P>

 

If I'm shooing landscapes than 6x9 film it is on a tripod. If I'm just "taking the camera with me" without purpose, than it will most likely

be the 5d and it's landscapes are often detailed enough. If I think I'll want a big print, I'll make the image from multiple frames, even

handheld.<P>

 

I knew my opinion would annoy a few...:)

Ilkka wrote: "I think it's quite sad really, considering all the time and money put into using the somewhat clumsy and

very expensive medium format equipment, if you don't use proper scanning equipment and technique, you might as

well have used a D70."

 

And that is indeed why film-based medium format is 'on the way out' for me. The hassle to get the same results as a

current '35mm'DSLR camera is incomparable. I can afford to use my Mamiya 645 (which actually ALWAYS was a

hassle to use.. mmm...), but getting a Coolscan 9000 for it is just too much - work & money. There I will easily

sacrify some image resolution towards the practical use that the current crop of DSLR camera's has to offer! And I

make better images *because* it is less difficult to make them. My 645 sits on the shelve. To me, I have a pretty

good idea what to expect from a 12Mpx camera, from my experience with D200 and D300. The fact that the D700

has even better high-ISO performance and is full(35mm..)frame, makes it far from the "disappontment" with which

this thread started..! Only thing is... I don't have it yet.

<i>If I think I'll want a big print, I'll make the image from multiple frames, even handheld.</i>

<p>

How do you fix the clouds and other parts that move between exposures? Whenever I do this I end up with some

artifacts.

<p>

<i>getting a Coolscan 9000 for it is just too much - work & money. </i>

<p>

Well, if you have some existing nice images shot on medium format film, would that not justify the effort

assuming that they can't easily be

reshot with digital? I never thought the LS-9000 was much work to use; I think it's quite pleasurable compared to

some other scanners I've used, and certainly easier than operating a darkroom. But it is a considerable

investment, I agree with that. However, the money I've spent on digital capture devices and trying to hunt for a

decent wide angle prime for my Nikons was so costly that my medium format equipment, including the scanner, feels

very cheap in comparison. There is nothing like the tonal beauty of 6x7 black and white transparencies (except

of course, larger formats ...),

even after scanning, I don't know what I would replace that with. Perhaps just be without, but given the history

of traditional black and white photography, the beauty that people for over 100 years have labored so much to

produce in the darkroom is pretty easily accessible now with digital scanning and PS, plus a black and white

capable inkjet. I haven't seen anything comparable made with digital capture.

<p>

I don't believe that ease of operation automatically transfers into better images. It depends on what kind of

images you're looking for. Certainly for making informal candids of people, anything that moves, digital is

better, but a successful high resolution image worth permanent wall space may also be produced by good planning.

I'm not saying that you're in any way wrong, it's just that it's not obvious that the easy approach is always the

best. A more deliberate image may be resulting from a slower process. I am wondering myself if I have the

patience for it, considering the added complexity of operating two very different camera systems and workflows,

but I enjoy the diversity of having more than one way of doing something.

Ilkka wrote: "I think it's quite sad really, considering all the time and money put into using the somewhat clumsy and very expensive medium format equipment, if you don't use proper scanning equipment and technique, you might as well have used a D70."

 

I totally agree. I sold my Bronica system after I got a D70. I just couldn't justify the price of a medium format film scanner, and my Epson 2450 flatbed scanner with medium format negs/trans was no better than the D70 images. However, the Epson flatbed scanning a 4x5 neg/trans is another story. My scans from 4x5 negs and printed at 11x14 are better than darkroom prints, and are superior to D70/D80 images. I haven't tried 16x20 prints, but the 16x20 sized images look sharp enough to yield a very good large print. I'm sure the newer flatbeds are even better. I think if I was still interested in serious landscape photograpy, I'd use a 4x5 field camera and a good flatbed scanner.

"Ilkka Nissila , Oct 06, 2008; 11:43 a.m.

If I think I'll want a big print, I'll make the image from multiple frames, even handheld.

 

How do you fix the clouds and other parts that move between exposures? Whenever I do this I end up with some artifacts."

 

It's not usually a problem. I just keep each frame on a separate layer and draw the mask around the problem areas. It takes a little time, but I only

make a panorama if the image is worth the effort.

 

I'll try to attach a really big jpeg pano so you can look for the moving things like cars that appear twice in the same photograph...<div></div>

Ilkka wrote: "I don't believe that ease of operation automatically transfers into better images. It depends on what kind of images you're looking for. [snip] I'm not saying that you're in any way wrong, it's just that it's not obvious that the easy approach is always the best. A more deliberate image may be resulting from a slower process. [snip]."

 

Ha! We should maybe devote a different thread somewhere else to this subject - it is a fascinating one on its own. For my style of working (see for example www.flickr.com/photos/albinonflickr), I usually get annoyed with tripods and cumbersome camera-contraptions beyond the point of being flexible and intuitive. At that point being 'slowed down' doesn't lead to better photographs, to the contrary. Indeed, that is a personal thing - some people love to work with large camera's on heavy tripods (admittedly, I usually carry an old Gitzo 500 around - but it gets most use from bird observation). Admittedly, on the other side of the spectrum is the 'easy approach' of just shooting away and see what is left in final selection...

 

About the workflow with larger formats film towards digital prints.. I would love to work with the 9000, but future photography investments will go towards camera's.. My 645 was always in the shadow of 35mm work and the number of slides is limited.

You have some great images; MF would be very impractical for that type of close-up work. But I have to say many of your

images (i.e. ) look very much like they were taken on a tripod.

 

I take all my people photos hand-held, but my landscapes, architectural shots, and close-ups are mostly tripod based work.

I don't get good results shooting still subjects hand held. Something is always a little off if I do that. When traveling I

sometimes squeeze under pressure and take pics hand-held, often I regret it when looking at the results. The high ISO

performance of the D3 certainly has made it more viable than it used to be but still ... I'm very annoyed if I have to fix

things in post-processing. I'd much rather put the camera on tripod and get it right in the first place.

Maybe some of you should stop worrying so much about equipment and start taking pictures... Jesus, it never ends. And I thought I was desperate for new gear. I shoot a d40x for Christ's sake. Talk to me about High-Iso performance or sharpness, you have a D700, stop bitching.

I got to this quote and had to chime in:

 

John Beaver

"To me the real issue is still contrast. I agree with Eric completely, that the published dynamic range of most camera's

and film stocks is never realistic. I've not seen a digital camera that comes close to negative film in a real world setting.

I do think that the switch from ccd to cmos censors is a big improvement, and whatever the specs tell you, it's worth

upgrading from the d200 to d300 / d700 for that reason alone."

 

I agree in general; but I shoot the Fujifilm s5 Pro which does have very great exposure latitude. The tradeoff is

resolution. So for resolution I shoot film (and for the aesthetic), but for latitude the S5 Pro wins.

 

Best,

James

Wow... the D700 is made for speed, handling, full frame wideangle use and of course... hi iso with low noise. thats where it excells, wait till nikon releases that 24mp beast they have in the background in hiding. as for resolution... best bet is the Sony Alpha A900 with that 135mm f1.8 ziess lens at f8 or a meduim format digital camera. you want the res you go ultra high res. right now, the tech hasnt quite jumped into that category... however, lets just be honest, the D2x and Canon 1Ds Mark II have already been used for enlargements with great success. Is it you or is it the camera?

Are we going to having similar questions in 2010?

• Nikon's new 36 megapixel camera only having a 10% improvement over their old 25Megapixel Camera?

• The numbers race continues; with 38 GB memory cards to cope with the huge data files.

 

There will always be those who value numbers and technical specifications over the Subject matter. Those who want expensive toys to play with (and I have known many) are what keep Nikon; Canon etc in business.

 

Real photographers concern themselves with composition exposure and subject. The number of pixels is irrelevant . Does a miniature painting deserve less merit because it is small?

 

I am sure are some great images from mobile phones; Maybe we should spend a day with one and post the results on this forum?

<i>Maybe some of you should stop worrying so much about equipment and start taking pictures... </i>

<p>

We do.

<p>

<i>Real photographers concern themselves with composition exposure and subject</i>

<p>

Composition and exposure should be second nature for people who shoot a lot. The subject is never a triviality,

so that's something to think about. However, opinions differ so wildly about content related matters so online

discussions of that are rarely fruitful. It's better to talk about the content with people you know personally in

real life, and technology with us geeks online. :-)

Dave Perkins wrote: "I am sure are some great images from mobile phones; Maybe we should spend a day with one and post the results on this forum?"

 

...And then regret that those great images were not taken at a higher resolution, with just a little bit more control over lighting and focusing.. ;-)

 

For me, 10Mpx was the starting point, 6Mpx I always thought of as just-not-enough. Those 10Mpx are still fine on my D200. From there on, everything is a welcome improvement.

"Ilkka Nissila [Frequent poster] , Oct 07, 2008; 08:31 a.m.

 

Maybe some of you should stop worrying so much about equipment and start taking pictures...

 

We do. "

 

Professor, I'd like to see you post an image. Maybe you don't have time since you are fixing that Big Bang

machine or something.

 

Just kidding Ilkka. I'm having a sarcastic moment.

 

Anyways, here's something I took this morning. Nothing special, but what's interesting is that when viewed at

100% it's not at all bad - extremely sharp. I might even print it.<div></div>