D300 vs D700 at low ISO's

No, I don't have any examples to post, but I am a new D700 owner and having looked at new images from that camera

compared to those from the D300, I've noticed that the new D700 is, well, soft compared to the D300. It means the

D300 has better per-pixel sharpness at normal ISO's compared to the D700. I have to add a lot more unsharp mask

to the D700 image to match the D300 image. The D300 image is so clean and detailed at ISO 200 I want to lick it!

 

Certainly though, the D700 has less noise in the shadows at ISO 200 than the D300, that is a benefit of the

larger sensor. But those fine details aren't there, at least to my eyes. The D80 suffered too from a soft look

vs. the D70s. I think some say it's anti-aliasing filtering going on? I dunno, but it is one small disappointment

I have with my new D700.

 

If I were just going to shoot at ISO 200 forever, I'd stay with the D300. But I don't do that, and I also want to

use my MF Nikkor primes, so the D700 wins.

 

The bottom line is they are both fantastic incredible cameras. But the D700 is a little bit soft for my tastes.

But I'll get used to it. Maybe I need to shoot at higher ISO's to get a little more "bite" in the image :-)

What lenses did you use, Dave?

 

Both tripod mounted?

 

Have you done a true side-by-side test or only compared "real world" images (nothing wrong with the latter).

I compared results from two photos of the same object taken with each camera, on different days. It's easy for me to tell at a glance which looks better. I'm also talking mid-tones, not shadows or highlights. Certainly shadows are better at low ISO with the D700, even at ISO 200 you could see some grain with the D300. The D700 just has a stronger anti-alias filter going on, from what I can see.

"The D300 image is so clean and detailed at ISO 200 I want to lick it! "

 

Heeheehee. :)

Peter asked some excellent questions. I am still waiting for answers from Dave as well as some image samples to back up those stated observations.

Dave, if you not happy with that D700, you may be able to coax and offer out of me ;-)

Having just upgraded from a D200 to a D700 today, I can only say I'm pleased I made the move. The image quality to my eyes is much more sharper and colourful.

 

This is one of the first images<div></div>

Well I have to agree with Dave.

 

Coming from a D2x to the D700, the first thing I noticed was that at base iso the images were a lot more soft than the

D2x files (after converting the RAW file) and needed much more unsharp mask applying to achieve a similar degree of

sharpness as the D2x. Four weeks with the D700 and I still am surprised by how much they need sharpening, and how

soft the RAW conversions look (I am mainly using the NIkon 24-70, 85 1.4 and a 50 1.8 - at f4 - f8 for studio work).

 

Obviously there are other benefits to the D700 such as the superb noise-free images, excellent (really excellent)

dynamic range and more.... but I can't help feeling a little underwhelmed by the camera so far. Just off in a couple of

days to do a job in Sudan, so will be a good test for the camera (and me).

I can post some examples today, but now I have to go out for some shopping.

I've incresed the sharpness of the camera and it equals now to the D300.

Check out page 9 of Bjørn Rørslett's D3 review.

Yossi,

 

May I ask as a new D700 owner how in increase the sharpness in camera. It is a very thick instruction book and will take some reading and understanding.

 

Thank you

Paul,

 

Thanks for the reference. I read it and it makes perfect sense. I'm still a little disappointed, but overall the quality from the D700 is better than the D300 in the transition areas and the shadows. Even at ISO 200 on the D300 I could see noise in the transition areas and the shadows, which is gone on the D700, not to mention clean files up to and through ISO 3200!

 

Yossi, I also have increased in-camera sharpening but this only helps the JPG files. And even then it doesn't quite equal the D300.

David M

I also think the images are a bit soft from the D700, but I have not figured out whether it is because I am now willing to

shoot at 1600 whereas on my D200, I almost never shot above 400 or whether it really is a bit softer. I really appreciate

the high ISO capabilities.

 

Is there a way to sharpen in the camera using RAW files or do I have to do that post process..

Thanks

Steven

First let me say that I am not an expert in this area. So here's my question:

 

When comparing DX and FX cameras, do we need to take depth of field into consideration? At the same aperture, is the depth of field difference for the FX and DX camera significant enough to play a role here?

Bjorn has a good review of the D3 and pretty much comes to the conclusion that it is not.

Can you let us know what lens you used for the comparison????

Hi Dave Lee, Can you provide a link to Bjorn review...and I am not quite sure what you mean by 'that it is not'

 

Thanks

It has been four days since Peter Hamm asked for testing details, e.g. which lens, was a tripod used ... and aperture settings as well as sample images.

 

I have been using the D700 for two months now. At least I am not aware that it produces soft images unless it is a photographer error in my case. Therefore, I very much would like to see same samples to demonstrate this problem.

Yeah, I'd still like to see that info. I'm probably thinking about upgrading soon (on my 3-year cycle, I hope...) so I'm

genuinely curious.

Not scientific, not quantitative...but in my view the question is does it satisfy your work needs.. analytics can be

strange things.....

 

So the pictures I have attached are both shot with a D700 with old shaking hands

Nikkor VR 70-200 f2.8 lens. All natural light

 

First image is (she was in significant motion)

ISO 1600, f2.8, 1/640 at 95mm with continuos focus set at 9 spots

 

Second image

ISO 560, f2.8, 1/640 at 75 mm with continous focus set at 9 spots

 

All shots were RAW with post processing thru Aperture with a bit of an increase in contrast, saturation, vibrancy and

sharping (oh... that took about 15 seconds to do global corrects on 550+ images) and then individual picture adjustments

on exposure.

 

Decide whether these would be ok for your work. If not, then perhaps the D700 is not the camera for you....or you have

more skill than I do... which is probable!!!

 

But for me, I can do things that I would never ever even considered with my D200....<div></div>

This is the second image<div></div>

Steven, IMO your first image's focus is clearly off; I can tell even from a small JPEG.

Exactly which 9 AF points did you select?

 

I have mentioned a few times (including in photo.net's D700 reivew) that since the Multi-CAM 3500's cross-type AF points are concentrated in the center, it is a weakness for portrait type shots.

Having a moving subject doesn't help.

 

In his OP, Dave Lee was talking about pixel sharpness. The only meaningful test would be shooting a still subject on a tripod with a good lens at f8, f11 or so.

Hi Shun

Here is a 867x867 pixel crop reduced to 700x700 pixels...and I have attempted to overlay a poor mans display of the focus

point. I record that on the camera when I am shooting, but have never been able to figure out how to display it on my

computer. Curious as to your thoughts, but remember she is moving, I am tracking with the camera with VR on and it is

at ISO 1600 f2.8, 1/640 at 75 mm with continous focus set at 9 spots

 

If people have better ways of achieving really sharp focus in this sort of environment, I would really really love to learn

about them.<div></div>

Oh..and I did not mean to disrupt the OP's discussion and apologize. All I was trying to say is the D700 allows me to

capture pretty good images in difficult situations of low light and motion... the second image is not in motion but shot at

ISO 640. Steven