d700 reality check

[warren_williams]

<p>I'm an architect, so a lot of my photography is of buildings and cityscapes in addation to the normal travel and family photos. For years I was happy with a kit consisting of a 8008, 20 mm, 28pc and a 28-85 zoom. About a year and a half ago I went digital with a D80 and got a 12-24 Tokina to take care of the wide end. I've been generally happy with the results (my prints are usually up to 11x17) but hate the weight of the wide zoom and don't find the choice of focal lengrths helpful (miss the 2.8 apeerature too). antd I miss my 28PC but I know and use the photoshop work around.<br>

I've been trying to convince myself of the need to get a D700 to return to my much loved kit of lenses but from what I am reading I won's see a image quality improvement except maybe in available light interiors, ( I might like to crop and/or go with the occasional larger print), Is this true and do I have to wait for the D700x with a 24 meg sensor to get a image quality improvement in normal daylight shooting?</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>How much improvement are you waiting for? There is always going to be the 800X, 900X etc. Of course the D700 will have an improvement in IQ over the D80. No one can tell you how much since it is such a subjective area. We never "need" a camera in out life. We can always "want" a camera though.;-)</p>

[sprouty]

<p>For the type of photography I do, mostly people in either available light or low light, I know I saw a noticable difference in detail, and noise when I went from a D200 to a D700. But I'm not sure you'd see as much of a difference if you shoot daylight urban scenes. Is there a chance you can find a D700, drop your CF card in and snap a few images?</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>i disagree with the notion that the FX sensor is no better than the DX sensor in general image quality, except at high ISO settings. but whether it's "worth it" in terms of the expense is subjective. on the other hand, it's true, you'll be able to use your much-loved kit of lenses, at the FOV they were designed for. and the viewfinder of the D700 is a big step up from the D300's -- even if coverage is a bit less than 100 percent.<br>

as for the D700x, read thom hogan's review of the D3X (link on a recent thread here) for an introduction to what a camera like that will do for ya... personally, at the current state of technology i'll stick with the 12mp FX sensor -- it's a keeper!</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>On paper there is the minor resolution increase from D80 10 MP sensor to D700 12 MP sensor so in theory, there is a small gain to be made in any light conditions. </p>

<p>Like Hansen said - subjectivity is what a lot of us base our choices upon. I shot for a few years with the D200 which I believe has the same 10 MP sensor as the D80. The difference between D200 and D700 is significant and subjectivly speaking very impressive - and I'm talking only about broad daytime ambient light results. let's leave the performance at higher ISO out of the reckoning for now.</p>

<p>I claim to be no expert <em>but,</em> what I do know about is my plant sales photographic work. And what I know is that the D700 using the same lens and tri-pod etc as I used on the D200 in the same normal daylight conditions reproduced in my plant houses (where I shoot very often) offers me better resolution of highlight and shadow detail in a RAW file. The improvement on the prints from the same print source is instantly and visibly recognisable. This is by no means a scientific controlled experiment but is precisely what I was wanting in an FX camera like the D700. </p>

<p>Why wait for brand X when you can become re-aquainted with your PC lens now?</p>

[vinh]

<p>You will see an improvement going from the D80 to the D700... and here's why, you won't have to resort to Photoshop to work around the issue of perspective correction. Doing this in photoshop results in pixel loss as you crop the photo after you've adjusted the perspective--the more correction, the more you have to crop. So you aren't simply gaining only 2MP going from the D80 to the D700, you gain the use of your PC lens and can avoid Photoshop altogether, keeping ALL your pixels in the final image. That, and the more you manipulate pixels, the more the image starts to break up. Overall, the potential gain is significant.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>HAving shot the same subjects (Architecture and still lifes) with the D3 (imaging system in the D700 and D3 are identical) and D300 in direct A/B comparisons , there's no question in my mind that the D3 / D700 out performs the D300 in several ways, and this difference will be even more profound in comparing the D80 to the D700. Of course you should not believe everything you read on the internet.</p>

[commtrd]

<p>You should wait for a D700X.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>sounds like you don't really NEED the d700 but want us to tell you that you really do.</p>

<p>in that case, why spend $2500 when you can spend 10k? if you want the highest possible resolution on a digital camera, skip the d700 and get a d3x. of course if you're all about image quality, you'll also need the 14-24/2.8 for it, since the design flaws of your 20mm prime will be revealed. sure that's a lot of cheddar, but you're an architect so its a write-off for you anyway, right?</p>

<p>ok, reality check time: your d80 is as good at high ISOs as an 8k d3x. a d3/d700 will give you more resolution and theoretically better IQ than a d80 but since it's only a 2mp increase you probably wont see much difference in normal viewing (i.e. above the pixel level) unless you are printing 16x20 or larger. therefore the high ISO performance and the ability to use your older lenses without the 1.5x multiplier are the main advantages of a d700. a d3x will give you more resolution and theoretically better IQ at 11x17 and above, but it's not as good at high ISOs as a d3/d700. one thing a d700 or d3x will do, however, is auto-correct for CA--which is nice when using tokina lenses--but a $1k d90 will do the same thing. there's always the option of getting an 11-16/2.8 for your d80 if you want less DoF and a smaller range. if you're saying you prefer primes over zooms, what about the nikkor 14/2.8, which is almost as wide on DX as your 20mm and weighs almost half of the tokina 12-24 (dont forget the d700 weighs much more than the d80 btw)? and for under $2500 there's that 24mp Sony as well...</p>

<p>so in the end, it comes down to subjective criteria: how much is using older lenses at original FLs worth to you? how useful will high ISO performance be to you? will a 24mp sensor be better than a 10mp or 12mp sensor for your purposes? how large are you planning on printing? what is your budget? and, do you really need to spend more money on a body and/or serious glass, or is your current d80/12-24 combo perfectly fine? are you just feeding your NAS by even posting on this topic? only you can really answer those questions.</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Warren, consider renting a D700 for a few days. Take some shots with both cameras and blow them up to 11 x 17. Nothing like seeing the results right in front of your own eyes to tell you what works best.</p>

 

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>By the time you trade the Tokina wide and the D80 for a much heavier D700 and 14/24 Nikkor you will be no better off weight wise. Skip the 14/24, and weight wise it is still a wash I would bet without doing the calculations.<br>

The D700 is no lightweight camera. You could always leave the Tokina home. You can`t leave the D700 home<br>

If you are happy with the image quality with what you have, do not trade. If not, the D700 is an outstanding camera when used with good lenses.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#MF28-85">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#MF28-85</a></p>

<p>That lens is one of the lowest rated lenses I have seen in his evaluations, however it may satisfy you. That leaves you with buying a new main lens. 35/70 2.8 is the smallest prograde zoom. My D700 becomes a brick with that attached. 24/70 & 28/70 2.8 are ever bigger. So after you spend money trading things around,you will get better images but may not save the weight you expect.</p>

<p>The slope gets slippery, so find a good shop and go with a CF card so you can try things out. </p>

[josephbraun]

<p>If I were you I'd wait 5 years for the price of FX to drop.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>D700 has a bigger sensor. I would get it for that purpose alone, to switch from my D300.<br>

For your purposes, to switch only if you see improvements, you should rent D700 to be able to tell for sure.<br>

I like taking pictures of everything that interests me, based on light... landscapes mostly, but also cities, people, animals, zoos. I would definitely benefit for lower noise and bigger sensor for photo opportunities i know about, and what future opportunities would bring.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I think the best idea is to rent a D700 and see for yourself how it does with your current lens set and how heavy and easy the D700 is to use. I went from a D200 to a D700 and am very happy. I am used to the heavy body though. If you like your older film lens kit with the D80 you will probably be OK. IMHO the less PP needed the better.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Full-frame trounces DX format full-stop! Image quality isn't about pixel count, it's more about pixel size, and from what I've seen 24 megapixels doesn't deliver much more detail than 12 megapixels.</p>

<p>The very reason I bought a D700 was to make use of all my "old" full frame Nikkor lenses, and in general their IQ hasn't disappointed me one bit. But if you want to make the most of full-frame, forget zooms - especially budget zooms. Oh! One exception. The 80-200mm f/4 AiS Zoom Nikkor gives stunning results on the D700, and the series "E" 75-150mm f/3.5 ain't bad either.</p>

<p>I also use an old 35mm f/2.8 PC-Nikkor - which Nikon says I shouldn't BTW - with good but not exceptional results. Nikon's issue seems to be that the plastic Ai coupling collar on the D700 comes within a whisker of colliding with the rear rim of the lens - except it doesn't actually do any harm to either the lens or the camera. With another sample of lens or camera it might be a different story. Anyway, the 12 megapixels of the D700 are enough to show the slight overall softness you get with large image-circle lenses like the PC-Nikkors.</p>

<p>So if you've got old full-frame lenses lying about, then I'd say "Go for it now!". Why wait for the spurious advantage of more pixels that are only going to mainly hold empty resolution? If you want to see what I mean, have a look at the sample pictures on DPreview from Sony's Alpha900. There's bags of no-detail to see there.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Well, obviously you're a candidate for the 24mm PC-E and there is nothing in DX format to do what it does. It's optically superior to the old PC wide angles and gives generally speaking excellent results in architectural photography.</p>

<p>I also hold the opinion that for wide angle photography, a D700 with proper modern wide angles produces generally noticeably sharper detail than a DX setup.</p>

[jorgen_udvang]

<p>Buy the D700 and be happy. Only the fact that your 28PC will be available for wide-angle photography is reason enough. Perspective corrections in Photoshop are ok most of the time, but they require extra work, and from a quality point of view, they are often difficult to make as good as the real thing. You'll also lose resolution in the upper part of the photo, which can be visible in large prints.<br>

Add to that the high-ISO performance of the D700, and now we're talking 3-4 stops over the D80, which will make you able to do indoor lowlight shots handheld.</p>

[warren_williams]

<p>Thanks for all the great information and things to think about. It hadn't occurred to me that the higher mega pixel count would drive noise up somewhat - I guess you can't repeal the laws of physics. I also hadn't realized the added weight of the D700 - one with a 20 mm will outweigh a D80 with a 12-24 by about 10 oz it seems. What I'm thinking about now is how much I would like to have the capability to do more available light interiors - I take a lot of historic buildings where flash may not be allowed. OTOH walking around with he lighter weight D80 is appealing. I wonder if it is technically feasible to produce a full frame light weight digital even if it meant that you would have to manually cock the shutter and have no auto focus like my FE2.</p>