D700 Somewhat Disappointing

[roypanos]

BG

Is that large pano you posted of Tibilisi by any chance? I have a few friends from the region.

 

I've read this thread with great interest. It's much better-tempered than many forums I've seen (dpreview being notably waspish). I have a D200; I don't earn a penny with it and as a full-time, non-earning carer, it represents a large expenditure when combined with a few lenses. The D200 seems to be the baseline reference for this discussion, which interests me as I've been looking enviously at all the better alternatives from Nikon.

 

I have been doing VR HDR spherical panos for about a year, mostly in extremely under-lit environments, using the Nikon 10.5 FE. This sometimes entails 4 minute+ exposures, RAW+jpeg @ F8, ISO 100-200, with 7-or 10 shot bracketing - a total of 70-90 shots per pano. This takes a while (particularly writing the files to cards) and is very vulnerable to the presence of other activity in the vicinity. So a camera that produces significantly less noise at higher ISO would be very useful; I'd love a D300. Another £1000 is a lot of money to me, though. Going to FX format and replacing all the lenses is simply out of the question. I wonder what developments we can expect for the DX format? There's a huge installed user base of potential customers for continuing updates to the format I would have thought. Does anyone have an opinion on the likely timescale and expectations for the next increment?

 

On the photostitching element in the discussion, I have been using PTGui, with its own (now improved) blending engine and the alternative blending apps, Smartblend and Enblend. It's not the easiest software to learn but it works extremely well.

[link]

Yes Roy, that's Tbilisi, Georgia. A very beautiful city. You should visit your friends if you get the chance.

[photo5]

Roy, thanks for the post. I'm with you, DX format suits me just fine. I have a D300 and recently bought the Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye and am loving it.<P>

 

<center><img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/382482382_bmKvi-M.jpg"><P>

 

Dale Chihuly sculpture at the V&A Museum in London, D300 and Nikon 10.5mm, 9-28-2008</center><P>

[photo5]

Still can't decide which one is better, horizontal or vertical...<P>

 

<center><img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/382399207_mT7EG-XL.jpg"></center><P>

[ilkka_nissila]

Will try. Not a professor, by the way. Just one of those academic ants behind the scenes. ;-)<div></div>

[jay_moynihan]

For me, a very interesting thread.

My primary digital camera is a D200. I use it primarily at base ISO & rarely at ISO 400, for landscape and the like. I have been thinking that maybe, someday, price drops and the economy allowing, I would get a D700. I have a fair amount of AI-s manual focus glass.

But, it appears from the above, that I would little if anything, at low ISO.

[ilkka_nissila]

Jay, I would recommend trying the camera and seeing what you can do with it. It's not a magic box which transforms

photography. Like with any new technology, it takes time and experimentation to find the best way to use it. There are

considerable rewards though, once you learn to use it. Even at base ISO.

[jay_moynihan]

"I would recommend trying the camera and seeing what you can do with it."

 

Good advice.

[studor13]

Jay, one of the things I've learned since I got the D300 is that high ISO is a great thing. So the D700 would be even better.

 

As a serious landscape photographer I had always thought that base ISO 100 was all I would ever need.

 

There are so many more options now available that I had never thought before.

 

Even if you just want to clown around you can really improve your photography.<div></div>

[Philip Freedman]

Now I have a D700 and a D300 I can add a few observations from some NON-scientific test shots. Possibly due to the greater density of pixels in the D300 it seems that enlarging a crop produces very slightly more resolution than using the D700 at low ISOs. However the overall color gradation and feel of the picture is rather better with the D700 as is the low light capability and the larger viewfinder is a very important benefit - the D300 is tunnel like by comparison. I am happy with both cameras but much prefer the D700. I repeat that my comments derive from wholly nonscientific testing and others may get different results,so please exercise restraint when responding !

 

Philip

[lex_jenkins]

<i>Okay, please excuse the disruption.<p>

 

In the interest of getting back on track I've deleted the offensive remarks from one individual. My apologies to Robert Budding, Ric Marder and Eric Friedemann, but I deleted your responses to the disruptive individual rather than trying to edit them to maintain context. I hope you won't mind.</i>

[neil_colton]

Eric-

 

I know this is Nikon country , but the Canon 1DSMKII + MKIII would solve your problem. I use Nikon's for photojournalism, but Canon + MF for architecture + commercial work. The Canon glass is not as good as Nikon's, but I get 16x20 prints that are tack sharp.

 

Hope I'm not convicted of heresy...

 

Best,

 

Neil

[ilkka_nissila]

Neal, it's not heresy, but switching for the extra pixels is probably not rational at this time given that most

of the investment is in lenses. Canon bodies

don't

work perfectly with Nikon glass; you can use them with an adapter but lose the automatic aperture and autofocus.

In landscape photography, these things may not matter that much, but for normal photography, they do. Canon is no

longer the only player in 24x36 digital, and although Nikon hasn't traditionally been a player in the high

resolution market, they may well follow Canon and Sony.

 

Even though the current FX Nikons are 12 MP, I find the print quality to be excellent. Scanned 6x7 film has more

fine detail, but the images look different enough that the "look" should the

driving factor for the choice of medium, not the fine detail. E.g. I use 6x7 for the high contrast traditional

black and white look. For wall sized prints of still

subjects, I think medium format digital or drum scanned large format film (esp. for black and white) are better

than either 24x36 digital or MF film. If

you want to extract the last bit of detail from 35mm Nikon lenses, and see the comparatively blurry

corners, I don't think you have to wait long for that, for whatever this "look" is worth. Me, I am happy to have

invested in FX before it is spoiled by too small pixels. ;-)

[ilkka_nissila]

To clarify my previous post, I sounded probably too negative towards high-res FX sensors. I know they have advantages in portability, flexibility, lens choice etc. compared to MF/LF equipment. But I remain suspicious as long as Canon's own advertising pictures (the glacier landscape) has distinctly soft corners in an image which should not have them - couldn't they find a better lens for the shot? If this is the best that can be done, then count me out.

[eric friedemann]

Neil, if I won the lottery, I'd be out tomorrow buying two 1DSMIIIs, half a dozen of Canon's lenses that have been thoughtfully redesigned for FX sensors, half a dozen of Canon's flagship flashes, etc. But, for better or worse, I can't afford to dump all my Nikon stuff and start over.

[anand_dhupkar]

Thinking very seriously to move either D300 or D700.

Quite a few folks are saying D700 is loud. Is it so ? I have D70s - compared to that how loud is it ?

[eric friedemann]

The sound of a D700 firing isn't likely to be confused with the sound of a Leica M6 firing, but I didn't find the D700 loud by comparison with other DSLRs or 35mm SLRs.

[edchambers]

Anand,

 

I would say the D700 shutter feels more substantial in the hand; however the sound energy is about the same or negligible.

[josephwalsh]

I got my D700 a few days ago and must say I, too, am disappointed.

 

Yes, I still have had to make my own coffee each morning.

Other than that...it's great!

[markonestudios]

I'm a Canon shooter myself, but thought I'd lurk in the Nikon forum to see what's cooking on this side of the photoworld. First I must say I'm surprised that this discussion hasn't been closed by the admins! :) Not that it should. It presents some intriguing insights into people's photographic philosophies and workflows :) I've no intention of fuelling any fires here. I personally find that I get more latitude with my film prints... As for resolution as relates to printing, Eric (OP) I'm just curious as to why one would want to view a 16x20 print from 12 inches away? I base this on your statement:

<p>"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." What would you term 'photographic' quality?

[eric friedemann]

"I'm just curious as to why one would want to view a 16x20 print from 12 inches away?"

 

 

Why wouldn't you want to be able to view a 16x20 inch print from 12 feet AND from 12 inches? Doesn't such a print call to you to come see its details?

 

 

My home has a fairly open living space. I hang images on walls where, like in a gallery, you can walk right up to them.

 

 

I like to view largish prints from some feet away, taking in the whole image. Then I like to come up close and see every detail. To me, that's photographic quality. You look at a 20-inch print of an image like Richard Misrach's photo of an abandoned swimming pool with the Salton Sea in that background up close and the detail is bottomless- the image is razor sharp and the contrast and tonality are amazing:

 

 

http://ericwilliamcarroll.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/richardmisrachdivingboard-saltonsea-1983.jpg

 

 

I don't like prints that are soft when you get up close to them. It suggests to me that the photographer either doesn't know or doesn't care what a photographic print should look like.

 

 

But that's me. Others may be perfectly satisfied with lesser quality.

[ilkka_nissila]

Misrach uses an 8x10 so I would imagine his prints are detailed.

<p>

If you want that kind of pictures, you're looking entirely in the wrong direction for equipment.

[tri-x1]

I don't care what format your are shooting. Even a shot from an 8x10 camera will have some softness if you enlarge it even a few times. It doesn't mean the photographer doesn't know what he's doing. It means you are too close to the print. The larger the photo, the farther back one should stand to properly view it. A 16 x 20 is too large to be proberly viewed from a foot away.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"Even a shot from an 8x10 camera will have some softness if you enlarge it even a few times."

 

You can enlarge a few times and still produce tack-sharp images if you have an excellent enlarging lens, your film is flat, and your enlarger is properly aligned. Even when examined with a loupe they can be sharp. BUt there are limits. Certainly you will see softness up close with 10x and greater enlargements.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Doesn't such a print call to you to come see its details? "

 

No.

 

Because that it isn't the way the photographer saw the photo and I am more interested in a photographer's view of life than absolute technical details.