Has D700 set the standard?

[michael_walker11]

<p>hold the camera, if you like the ergonomics than buy it, simple as that...</p>

<p>it's sure one of the best cameras you can buy for an amount of money ordinary people can spend. The d700 enables you to shoot under any condition and I'm not referring to the lighting condition only. I used the d700 in heavy rain in Brazil, on a boat with salt water splashing against my baby, in the Swiss mountains buried in snow or at a party being drowned in sticky alcohol (just wash it off with water ;-) ).<br>

get a 50mm f1.8 for 100$ combined with ISO 6400 and you won't fear the dark anymore. the autofocus needs some practicing though mastered once you will love it. Don't know whether i mentioned the beautiful viewfinder or the fast and intelligent control set-up.<br>

of course, if you dont need the sealed body or the fast AF, you might get a less expensive alternative with the canon 5D (really unexpensive atm).</p>

<p>if you're more into DX you might consider a D300, giving you clean images up to iso 3200 (at least a friend of mine keeps on delivering those kind of images with his d300).</p>

<p>an advantage i learned to appreciate with FX is the good nature towards older lenses. you can put anything in front of your d700 and get good results. I'm using a 70-210mm f4 (yes, nikon does have constant f4 lenses^^) for a 70-200 would be too expensive and i rarely use that focal length.<br>

and if you add a 14-24 or 24-70 you're simply going to be blown away.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>Shun said:<br /> >In the mean time, I can assure you that 12MP is plenty for probably 99% of us.</p>

<p>Yes, that's true unless your main cup of tea is landscape photography and you need to print it 20x30". Sometimes I wished the D3X was around 5 years ago, then all the images I took in my trips would be printed with higher fidelity.</p>

<p>And, yes, we can certainly stitch using the D700/D3 but there better not be wind or things moving in the frame.</p>

<p>In terms of higher fidelity, the D3X is clearly a no-brainer option.</p>

<p> </p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>Shun said:<br>

>During the workshop, I compared the D3X against a professional photographer's D3, and we made a lot of A/B comparisons.<br>

Please explain how you compare them --- zooming in using the LCD? Or did you print the shots large?</p>

<p>>To us, it is not clear the D3X is all that much better in some real-life shooting conditions.</p>

<p>What conditions?</p>

 

[arthuryeo]

<p>I hope you are going to print the A/B comparison on large prints such as 20x36" size and compare it.</p>

<p>When I zoomed in (using PS/CS4) at 100% to look at images from a D3 versus a stitched image (also from the D3), I can certainly see the image deteriorate a lot faster on the single-shot image as I zoomed in. I have to say the stitched image was 50+ Mpix or so, though.</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Arun,</p>

<p>No, I don't think the D700 has set THE standard. It set A standard for Nikon cameras when it came out, but it will probably be replaced by the next 24MP D700+. Shun gives a very typical defense of the D700s capabilities, all true, but I also agree with RL Potts' take. Some of us prefer higher resolution over lower. After all if higher resolution requires better lenses, then so be it. </p>

<p>There seems to be a desire for Nikon D700 fans to claim it is the "best" camera and I am not sure quite why this is felt to be necessary.</p>

[ken_i_h]

<p>A newbie here. While I like my new D700 and very excited about it, thus play with it much more often than when I had D80, I bought D700 knowing and being painfully aware that it would be replaced soon. It is inevitable and we all should welcome and be happy with that type of advance/ progress of the machines. I don't know much about other brands (since Canon AE-1...) and am not qulified to make general statements. I think D700 can be a milestone when looking back in the future, but life goes on and newer, "better" machine will emerge every so often. I buy and hold on to good lenses for FX, so can be prepared for the next one that may catch my eye well enough to open the wallet. I have other hobbies and I have learned that there is always better ones. "Best" is a strong word. Let us be modest and enjoy life.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p >There seems to be a desire for Nikon D700 fans to claim it is the "best" camera and I am not sure quite why this is felt to be necessary.</p>

</blockquote>

<br />

<br />

I have a friend who recently bought a D700 and said the same thing about it being the "best" camera.

 

 

</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I for one am not claiming that the D700 is setting some sort of standard. I have no doubt that technology will continue to improve quickly so that the D700 will be superseded in a year or two. After all, the D700 is merely a somewhat stripped down D3, which was announced almost 2 years ago (August 2007). That is a fairly long time in "technology years."<br>

<br>

However, by now, I have done a lot of careful comparisons among the D3X, D3, D700, and D300, part of that with a full-time portrait/commercial photographer who has published several coffee-table type picture books. While 24MP does give you more resolution, the difference is subtle, and you must have the right subject plus equipment and technique to take advantage of it. For example, that photographer took some portraits of me with his 85mm/f1.8 AF-D at f8 for some A/B comparison. Even the D3 image shows every strand of hair sharply and every little blemish on my face clearly. If anything, the image needs to be softened to get a more pleasing print. Clearly there is no advantage at all for 24MP.<br>

<br>

There are indeed some applications where 24MP is an advantage, and sometimes people use/rent medium-format digital backs. However, for the majority of us, 12MP is plenty. We are all better off spending less time studying minute differences among camera bodies and lenses; instead, sharpen your picture-taking skills. When I traveled with John Shaw last November (about a month before the D3X official announcement), the topic of a 20+MP Nikon came up; Shaw pointed out that 12MP is plenty for him. I would imagine that he already had advanced information on the D3X at that time but obviously could not reveal it. Now Shaw is a well known landscape photographer who does not normally shoot 4x5 large format and he sells plenty of large prints. In a recent workshop with Frans Lanting when I tested the D3X, people are surprised to learn that Lanting is using a D300. In the workshop, Lanting emphases that it is far more important to capture the right image that convey his message than any minor technical advantages.</p>

<p>P.S. Stitching images together is very different from cramping more pixels into the same FX area. Stitching has its challenges, but effectively you have a much larger sensor area (but not at the same time), and that is not nearly as demanding on the optics.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>I think the D700 has set the current standard for high ISO ability combined with high image quality. While other cameras like the D3x, 5Dmk2, and A900 may offer higher resolution and slightly higher image quality, the trade-off is lower high ISO ability. The D700 seems to have hit a sweet spot with great image quality combined with great high ISO capability which is a claim that no other camera can make. Does this set a standard? I think so, the current standard. </p>

[rick_m.]

<p>An Argus C3 in competent hands will render a picture far better to look at than an untrained snapshot from a Leica. Having said that...</p>

<p>I recently went through the exercize of considering a change to Canon after over 40 years with Nikon. The 5D MarkII/ 50D combo was the primary (but not only) reason. I even met with the Canon rep who let me play with both (though he would not loan me either, dumb.) I decided to stay with Nikon.</p>

<p>I could care less about the pixel count. It is, for all intent and purpose, meaningless. (If you shoot murals you use a large fromat film camera anyway.) </p>

<p>The Nikon build quality felt far more robust. The control layout was easier for me. The Canon control wheel was cumbersome. I liked Canon's option of mid range L series glass (for example the 70-200 F4L) but as I thought about it I would never buy this lens over the 2.8. How could I? The video mode is a silly gimmic. If I want to shoot video I will use a real video camera. For snapshots or videos of the kids both are a monumental waste of money. </p>

<p>As for image quality. I try to make a good picture in the camera. I don't want to waste too much time in PS. Having said that. Color is most often a function of post production work anyway and the difference between the two are miniscule.</p>

<p>I beg you to read what Shun said above: "We are all better off spending less time studying minute differences among camera bodies and lenses; instead, sharpen your picture-taking skills."</p>

<p>I have been taking pictures for 45 years or so and when I need a shot in the arm WRT my product I go to a seminar or get someone to work with me for a shoot or two. That is really how to take better pictures. I can't buy skill and technique at Best Buy.</p>

<p> </p>

[photo5]

<p>Rick, well said. But while you can't buy skill and technique at Best Buy, they sure can sell you a heck of an extended warranty for only $69.95 ;-)</p>

[lou korell]

<p>Standard for what? Is there a "best" camera? Heck, the FM2 is still a great camera. Most of the newest cameras are feature packed. Are we speaking of technical standards?<br>

I have a few D700's and a D300. I also still have FM2N, FM2T, F3T, F4s, etc. cameras. I don't even shoot film anymore. So which one's set the "standard"?<br>

When all is said and done I am the one who needs to set a standard, not my camera. Whether or not I am using a D700, D3, 5DMKII, or an old camera, I still have to find the light, compose the image, choose the appropriate settings, and know when to press the shutter.<br>

When I no longer have to be responsible for that, I can send my camera to the job and I can relax and watch tv until my camera returns and uploads its own cards to the computer. Of course, we will not be able to judge at that point. The cameras will have to judge each other and decide which one "sets the standard". :)</p>

<p> </p>

[bsd230]

<p>I would probably take the D700 over the 5D MKII. Although I do like Canon's lenses better, I prefer Nikon's body. There is something about the tones and colors of a Nikon I prefer. As far as the D3x I would definitely take the D3 over it for the high ISO and faster frame rate. I think the D3 is more versatile. I also think the D700's 12 mp has a very high resolution that will meet just above everyone's needs. I think unless your shooting billboard size images, the 12mp will be more than enough.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>Shun,<br>

I also hope you have shot A/B comparisons using high resolution lenses rather than using old classics which do not prove the point. I would suggest the 24-70/2.8G and/or the 14-24mm/2.8G AF-S.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>I don't have a 24-70, but I have done A/B comparisons between the D3X and D3 with the 28-70mm/f2.8, 300mm/f2.8 AF-S (which is arguably the sharpest tele I have) and the 200mm/f4 AF-D macro. All done around f8 and f11 at their respective base ISOs, which means 100 for the D3X and 200 for the D3. I keep on getting the same results. The difference is very subtle and you literally have to look at the fine prints to see a tiny bit of difference.</p>

[dennis_fox1]

I've been reading about the fx format on the D3x. It's a tiny bit larger than the D700 that said.

The D3x has smaller mp than the D700 the smaller the mp the less light it can read.

That's why the D3x has noise at a higher iso and the D700 has less noise and a higher iso.

 

So the question should be, how are you going to uses the camera in the first place.

 

For me I like the idea of reading more light, It's a trade off as always.

 

As for standard it's what you use.

[Brad_]

>>> Much as though the D700 sounds a nice camera, I get the feeling that any photos that stand out are due to the skill of

the photographer finding good lighting and employing good technique.

 

Extremely wise words...

 

Great light and the photographer's vision, ability to interpret, capture, and process are what make great photos.

Gear, whether Nikon, Canon, or whatever, is way down on the list with respect to what makes compelling photographs.