Photostream : Mountain hiking with nikon d700

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I've just returned from a trip up the mountains and have uploaded some pictures. <br /> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/gp/60805454@N03/ey5GpB">Photostream here.</a><br /> <a href=" shot.</a></p>

<p>A few observations:<br>

<br /> - The d700 is a marvellous machine. However, it's big and heavy, even with a good strap. I am considering a mirrorless body but am afraid it will cost more and/or be of lesser quality.</p>

<p>- Most pictures have been taken with wide angle. Even though I had lenses up to 300mm, not a single shot of 135mm or more made the final cut. Of the 400 picture taken, I selected 20 favorites:</p>

<ul>

<li>40% were taken ultra wide (20-24mm)</li>

<li>30% normal wide (28-35mm)</li>

<li>20% normal (50mm)</li>

<li>10% portrait (85-105mm)<br /><br /></li>

</ul>

<p>- Changing lenses while hiking is annoying, in particular if you also need to change filters (a seperate filter set for every lens is costly). If you want to make it back down the mountain before the final cable car or boat crossing, you can't lose time with too many lens or filter changes. Therefore, I am considering a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 but am worried about its severe distortion (the lenses I was using are almost distortion-free).</p>

<p>I love travelling with my M43. Light, never know I'm carrying it. Remember that the there's a 2x crop factor with M43. I use a 14-42mm zoom which gives me an effective 28-84mm in full format equivalent. </p>

<p>While it's a bit more of an issue on older cameras with lower resolution (speaking as a former D700 owner), distortion doesn't bother me much. Nikon correct it themselves in in-camera JPEGs, you can correct it manually in Photoshop, and DxO fixes it automatically (unless you tell in not to). Technically this slightly reduces sharpness, but the effect is usually mild - I'd go with the lens for convenience. I spent a long time with a 28-200 on my D700, because at the right aperture it held up reasonably well (I'm about to get rid of it, because it doesn't really hold up at 36MP, but it's done me good service) - but I'm sure the 24-85 is better. I keep wanting a 24-120, but the f/4 version is a bit pricey, and I'm not that blown away by the performance.<br />

<br />

I can certainly agree that the D700 is a bit on the chubby side, although since I tend not to bother removing the QR plate, my D810 isn't actually any lighter. Very nice images (though they might be a little oversharpened in the Flickr preview); I envy you the fitness level to clamber up there!<br />

<br />

Moderators: While it's not too obvious from the post, I think it sounds as though Mr(?) Goose is asking for Nikon lens purchasing advice. Perhaps this should by redirecting to the Nikon forum thread, not the reverse? I'm worried that more helpful members would be likely to see it in that forum.</p>

<blockquote>I keep wanting a 24-120, but the f/4 version is a bit pricey</blockquote>

 

<p>Huh. Which is currently on £115 cashback in the UK (but not on the US Fathers' Day rebates). Which still doesn't quite make it tempting to me, especially while the 24-70 Tamron is cheaper, but it's closer to being interesting. Heads-up for anyone following.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While it's a bit more of an issue on older cameras with lower resolution (speaking as a former D700 owner), distortion doesn't bother me much. Nikon correct it themselves in in-camera JPEGs, you can correct it manually in Photoshop, and DxO fixes it automatically (unless you tell in not to). <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does auto-correction in ps camera raw remove all distortion or just reduce it?<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Very nice images (though they might be a little oversharpened in the Flickr preview); I envy you the fitness level to clamber up there!<br /><br>

<br>

Yeah it's quite a climb but the views are worth it (I haven't set any sharpening parameters on flickr). <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A random question: how do people set the <strong>color channels</strong> on a nikon d700? I find the greens usually oversaturated. Compared to canon, the overal contrast and saturation is lower, and colors are cooler by default.</p>

<blockquote>Does auto-correction in ps camera raw remove all distortion or just reduce it?</blockquote>

<p>The profile-based correction in Photoshop seems like it's not as complete as, say, DxO's - but I don't really know what it's checking with internal lens profiles. The user controls seem a bit simplistic, but you can warp manually. I mildly prefer Photoshop's LoCA control and, especially, tone management - but you can always retrospectively apply the raw filter to an image, so my usual workflow these days starts with DxO, as much to make PRIME noise reduction available as anything, but I've been generally impressed by the lens corrections. I'll then tweak in Photoshop if needed. Others doing more heavy lifting in Photoshop might be able to advise better. Unless you correct specifically for the one shot, I doubt any automated solution will be perfect - distortion is zoom and focal length-dependent, and sample-dependent, so there are a lot of variables to handle.</p>

<blockquote>I haven't set any sharpening parameters on flickr</blockquote>

<p>I was guessing the sharpening was automatic because I was viewing it the default size? I thought it looked like there was a bit of ringing from sharpening (or possibly HDR) around some of the edges, but I may be imagining it. Very nice, nonetheless. Thank you for sharing. Given the rain here, I needed that!</p>

<blockquote>A random question: how do people set the color channels on a nikon d700?</blockquote>

<p>I almost always leave the camera in auto-WB (particularly for custom WB it takes me a while to remember how to set it) and fix in raw. I desperately hope there's somthing grey in the scene and click on it... and for some reason I have less trouble with the white balance controls in Camera Raw than in in Photoshop proper. I'm probably not as picky as I should be; it's known that Nikon and Canon have different responses by default, and Thom Hogan reported a change in workflow that might indicate Nikon changed the filters between the D800 and D810. I've never thought in-camera is the place for getting subtle tonality right, but that might be because I'm no good at it...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you correct specifically for the one shot, I doubt any automated solution will be perfect - distortion is zoom and focal length-dependent, and sample-dependent, so there are a lot of variables to handle.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly my point for being wary of distorted lenses. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've never thought in-camera is the place for getting subtle tonality right, but that might be because I'm no good at it...</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No I meant in post. There's more to color tonality than white balance. There's camera calibration in ps camera raw, color channels, saturation/vibrance/clarity... </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Changing lenses while hiking is annoying, in particular if you also need to change filters (a seperate filter set for every lens is costly). If you want to make it back down the mountain before the final cable car or boat crossing, you can't lose time with too many lens or filter changes. Therefore, I am considering a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you dont say what specific lenses you are using, so difficult to make a recommendation there, based on that. but here's the thing: if 70% of your preferred shots are between 20-50mm, then most of your shooting parameters would be covered by a standard zoom. i would think you could get there with just two lenses: an UWA zoom and a standard zoom. nikon 16-35 VR + tamron 28-75/2.8 might be all the kit you'd need. the tamron is sharper than the nikon 24-85 and a very light lens for its spec. you're a little limited in terms of being able to reduce weight by using a FF camera -- a Fuji body with a 14/2.8 + 18-55 would get you there in IQ and shave considerable weight -- but i can totally respect wanting to stay with the D700, even though its not the lightest body out there. <br>

<br>

im not especially knocking the nikon 24-85, but it's an unexciting lens on paper. and not quite ultrawide. the problem with UWA primes is that if you leave them on the body, you have to swap lenses every time you want more reach. That can work if you're dialed in to the 20mm focal length, but UWA zooms are a bit more practical in real-world use. so the 16-35 might be a good choice for you, especially since it can take filters. you could also consider getting a Nikon 28-200 as a lightweight zoom option. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>i would think you could get there with just two lenses: an UWA zoom and a standard zoom. nikon 16-35 VR + tamron 28-75/2.8 might be all the kit you'd need</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have the 20-35/2.8 which is a solid performer.<br /> <br /> Some shots ask for light compression, like <a href=" </a>and <a href=" one</a>. That's when I take out the 50. It's a bit close to 35mm but the gap between 35 and 85 is often too much (remember you don't have the same freedom of movement in the mountains as you have in the street).<br /> <br /> Alternatively, I was thinking of using a 20-35/2.8 and 35-70/2.8 combination or just a 24-70/2.8, but carrying those doesn't seem like the right package for mountaineering, does it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You could also consider getting a Nikon 28-200 as a lightweight zoom option.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the 24-85 is unexciting, how can the 28-200 be any better? :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, the 28-200 is small enough that I used to leave it on my camera as a lens cap. (It's not quite that small, but it is reasonably light.) That meant I had a lens which could take some kind of shot if I didn't know what I was going to be shooting and just needed to grab the camera. It's okay at that on a D700, if nursed a little; on a D8x0 the image quality isn't really acceptable, and I imagine the 24-85 or 24-120 would be better choices.<br />

<br />

The 24-70 Tamron is smaller, and apparently sharper, than the Nikkor equivalents, for what it's worth. I'm about to pick one up.<br />

<br />

There's only so much you can do automatically with colour rendering. There's the wavelength/absorbtion rate and response curve of the sensor itself, and there's the effect of the bayer filter, which I presume various companies do their best to calibrate - but you're only capturing the scene in three channels (unless you have one of the old Sony RGBE sensors), and there comes a point where two different colours might suffer metamerism in the sensor. Historically this is why I used Velvia for bluebells (which came out more blue than purple on the D700) - I think the colours have changed a bit in the D810, which suggests the rumoured filter change, but that might be my imagination. It appears that things are different for Canon and Nikon, so I believe you that you're seeing differences, but some of it is possibly also taste by the developers (and there have been reported cultural differences in how people like images to look).<br />

<br />

Some seem to swear by Nikon's software for getting colours "right". Personally, I've heard so many bad things about their software that I've never let it near my computer, and tend just to adjust for taste - and even then, I'm not producing show prints, so I probably don't pay as much attention to it as I could. The biggest difference I've seen between Nikons has been the amount of default sharpening required on the D700 (which has a very strong low-pass filter) and the dynamic range that the newer sensors can capture, which means I can radically tweak the highlight/shadow reponse - but I've always just done so "to taste".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The biggest difference I've seen between Nikons has been the amount of default sharpening required on the D700 (which has a very strong low-pass filter) and the dynamic range that the newer sensors can capture, which means I can radically tweak the highlight/shadow reponse...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To my eyes, the 5dmkii was sharper, probably due to higher resolution, but the d700 immediately struck me with larger dynamic range and more reliable metering, which is a boon outdoors. <br /> <br /> On both cameras, at low ISO, you can fully open up the shadows without visible degradation. That's very impressive.<br /> Highlight recovery is more restricted. If you blow out more than one channel, recovery is futile (although canon blows out sooner).</p>

<p>In the tests I've seen, it appeared that the 5d2 had a weaker low-pass filter - the D700 is very soft even for a 12MP body. Which is fine, it just needs sharpening in post. The D800 has a much weaker filter than either, and the D800e/D810 don't have anything at all (give or take); the per-pixel output difference is very visible, and fortunately moiré is pretty rare.<br />

<br />

I never worried about the D700 up to about ISO 800, because it didn't seem to have <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D700___963_483_441">much of an effect</a> on noise/dynamic range. Even though the D800/D810 are appreciably better than the D700 at high ISO, I'm far keener to keep it down at the minimum so I've got the maximum flexibility for post-processing. The D700 still offers several stops-worth of tweaking unless the ISO is high, but the D8x0, D6x0, D750 and DX bodies since the D7000 are almost ISO-less in that dynamic range keeps increasing at low ISO. It basically means that I don't worry about fill lighting or reflectors since I upgraded, because I can pull the shadows back so well in post-processing. It was a visible difference in sensor behaviour; Canon are only beginning to catch up, although they do have dual-amplifier trick if you use Magic Lantern. Blowing the highlights is a problem even on current cameras, and I swill wish Nikon would do a more explicit ETTR mode than the highlight metering on the D810.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, I never fully got on with the D800's metering, even though the technology improved since the D700 (which has a similar metering sensor to the F5). The D810 is a bit better, but I found the D700 most reliable. The 5D2's meter, as I recall, is relatively primitive, so I'm not surprised you saw problems. For it's day, good sensor - shame about the meter and the AF. :-) (The 5D3 fixed the 5D2's meter [kinda], the AF and the speed; the D800 fixed the D700's sensor limitations, not that it's bad as such.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I never worried about the D700 up to about ISO 800, because it didn't seem to have <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D700___963_483_441" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">much of an effect</a> on noise/dynamic range. Even though the D800/D810 are appreciably better than the D700 at high ISO, I'm far keener to keep it down at the minimum so I've got the maximum flexibility for post-processing. The D700 still offers several stops-worth of tweaking unless the ISO is high, but the D8x0, D6x0, D750 and DX bodies since the D7000 are almost ISO-less in that dynamic range keeps increasing at low ISO. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Let's be honest, all these cameras do the same thing, except for resolution, which is meaningless for web use.</p>

<p>With proper exposure, the d700 is clean till iso 3200. I don't see the newer bodies having any significant advantage. Keep in mind that iso does nothing to improve the <em>quality</em> of light.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I wasn't sure whether I wanted a D800 when it was first announced, even though I have a couple of D700 prints where I feel I could have benefitted from some more pixels. What made me buy it was the low-ISO dynamic range, although having nearly a stop on the D700 at higher ISO is nice as well. Being able to pull so much shadow detail back with the D800 changed how I used the camera.<br />

<br />

The test that convinced me is <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html">here</a> - that's comparing with a 5D3, which is a perfectly good camera with a sensor that behaves a bit like the D700's (but with more pixels), and the D800-class sensors show a really visible difference in shadow handling. Of course, this makes absolutely no difference unless you want or need to be able to recover more detail from the shadows than the D700 already can; if you have good lighting control or the scene contrast actually matches what you wanted, these sensors don't help at all, but if you want to "improve the quality of the light" in post-processing, the sensor absolutely helps. For me, it matters, but it may not for you. This dynamic range advantage goes away as the ISO goes up, sadly.<br />

<br />

None of which makes a D700 in any way a bad camera. I'd still have mine as a backup if it weren't for Nikon swapping the + and - buttons on the D800, which made swapping between the two very painful for me (every time I tried to review an image I'd accidentally zoom out). I'm still mildly tempted by a D3s.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wasn't sure whether I wanted a D800 when it was first announced, even though I have a couple of D700 prints where I feel I could have benefitted from some more pixels. What made me buy it was the low-ISO dynamic range, although having nearly a stop on the D700 at higher ISO is nice as well. Being able to pull so much shadow detail back with the D800 changed how I used the camera.<br /><br />The test that convinced me ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't look at tests, I look with my own eyes :) None of the pictures posted above - which were all shot in high contrast situations - would have taken benefitted from a camera with an even larger dynamic. Most of the time I don't open up the shadows completely because then the picture looks flat. Besides, a truly high contrast situation asks for other technique than simply moving the shadow slider.</p>

<p>People - not necessarily you - buy into new things in the hopes of getting better results, yet they often do so before mastering the elementary pieces of good photographs: composition, light and post processing, none of which are camera dependent.</p>

<p><a href=" of my very first pictures</a> still stands to this day, and it was taken with a simple compact camera. A more fancy body would not have added much value, I believe.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sure - and I'm certainly not suggesting different processing on your images. (I was assuming the weird ringing I saw was Flickr's internal downsizing algorithm, since I was looking at the preview.) The images in that test are simply showing the effect of boosting the shadows, which is more meaningful to me as an absolute than staring at DxO's graphs, nice though they are to have. Having the dynamic range there is just a tool - it helps with skies, but it also helps with (for example) weddings in bright sunlight (I've had family on an Australian beach who have decided to put all the bridesmaids, in deep purple, in the shade so they didn't melt, and put the groomsmen, in beige, in the sun; my D700 struggled a bit), and I've used it for large group photos in situations where the people at the front were necessarily closer to the flash guns.<br />

<br />

All camera advances are there to handle awkward photographic scenarios - my old Eos 300D, grainy at ISO 400, takes perfectly good photos in the right conditions, but I'm glad to have some kit that gives me a better chance of a relatively decent shot without being so reliant on camping out for Clearing Winter Storm to go past. My own photos tend to be far more limited by me than by my equipment, and usually in ways that I'm aware of, which is why I don't share much and envy those like you who have shared some very nice images. All modern cameras are pretty good, I was just reporting a particular advance, since you'd called out shadow boosting as something the D700 and 5D2 are "good at". Compared with Velvia, they are - but sensors have moved on a bit. But then, there are now lots of high end cars which can do 0-100kph in under 3 seconds; this doesn't mean that the Ferrari F40's 3.9s 0-100 has become a slow or incapable car on the road, if anyone would like to give me one: something doesn't become bad just because something better comes along.</p>

<p>Sensors aside, the first thing I consider when packing is the size and weigth of a lens :)<br>

The 70-300mm being more than I needed, I started looking for an alternative. </p>

 

<ul>

<li>35-135mm f3.5-4.5 complementary focal length to the tried & true 20-35mm, although I'm not sure I'll like the push-pull mechanism and the high distortion? <br /><br /></li>

<li>28-200mm f4-5.6 an even slower lens and equally distorted but very small and very light, might fill in the occasional long shot?<br /><br /></li>

<li>85mm f1.8 as appealing as small & bright lenses are, I'm not sure about the utility of fixed tele in the countryside.</li>

</ul>

<p>I can't speak for the 35-135, I'm afraid.<br />

<br />

The 28-200 isn't optically brilliant, but it's better than you'd expect, especially at smallish apertures and if you're prepared to fix a little CA in post-processing. It was my most-used (and first) lens on my D700, but I've now traded it in. It's moderately hefty given that it's plastic and not very big - there's some glass in there. Of course, I mean "hefty" compared with (say) the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 G, which is a similar kit lens - it's no 14-24. If you don't know what you're going to be shooting, it's decent. Otherwise I can vouch for the 135mm f/2.8 AI and relatives, which is small, solid, and optically pretty good for very little money.<br />

<br />

The 85mm f/1.8 AF-D has, in my opinion, quite ugly bokeh. The AF-S version (which I believe is a bit bigger) is better, but also has quite a lot of LoCA (backgrounds go green) if you're not careful. I'm thinking about the Tamron 85mm VC, which appears to be better in that regard. I carried an 85mm f/1.4 Samyang around for a while (nicer Bokeh than the f/1.8 AF-D, sharper than the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D at larger apertures) but gave up on it because manual focus was too inconvenient for moving subjects.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, my "fit in a small toploader" carry bag with the D700 was the 28-200 on the camera, a 135mm f/2.8 AI in the pocket of the bag for portraits, and a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D in a pouch tied to the strap in case I needed to shoot in the dark. The 24-120 f/4 (the previous one being poor) is probably the "better camera" equivalent of the 28-200 - it's not perfect, but it's appreciably stronger than the 28-200. But it also weighs twice as much and costs even more.</p>

<p>I know what you mean about the weight. Recently I took my D300 with a Sigma 17-70mm on a hike up Old Rag and I was really wishing I had something lighter, especially as I have cervical spinal stenosis. The picture quality made it all worth it. The lens was just about perfect, possibly could have gone wider. The D300 is a DX sensor so the the FX equivalent would be about 25-105mm. I am considering getting a second body like the D5500 with a Nikon 16-80mm as it looks like I could save 1lb vs my present rig. <br>

The other thought is to use a camera sling bag rather than having it hang from my neck.</p>

<p>I absolutely LOVE your album. You have so many nice shots it's going to be hard to pick the best ones. I was in the mountains a few weeks ago shooting as well.</p>